U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told G7 foreign ministers in Paris recently that President Donald Trump ultimately decided not to resume military action against Iran or rush into a comprehensive deal, choosing instead to keep tightening a sustained siege on the Iranian regime.

People familiar with the discussions said that over the past several months Trump had weighed two paths: ramping up military pressure on Iran, or betting that Tehran would eventually make concessions under economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation. As the situation developed, the White House increasingly settled on a third approach: continuing to erode the Iranian government's capabilities through economic pressure, naval blockades and the severing of weapons and technology transfer routes.

In closed-door talks with G7 foreign ministers, Rubio emphasized that the United States was not confined to restarting a war or signing an agreement unfavorable to Washington. He said the policy being pursued was not a temporary measure and had no defined end date. Its goal, he said, was to keep Iran's economy under persistent strain, making it increasingly difficult for Tehran to finance regional armed groups and to restore its military capabilities.

Trump also said recently, after meeting with Qatar's prime minister, that the likelihood of another U.S. military strike on Iran had become very low and unnecessary. He appeared to prefer maintaining high pressure, allowing Iran to endure greater strain through a prolonged war of attrition.

Views inside the U.S. government on the next phase of Iran policy were not fully aligned. Some officials in Trump's national security team argued for resuming military strikes, saying it was the most direct way to pressure Tehran. Others warned that renewed fighting would raise regional risks and impose additional costs on U.S. domestic politics. Most Gulf states, more worried about escalation, opposed further military action.

In Washington, key figures backing the siege approach include Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Trump adviser Jared Kushner. They do not support immediately restarting a war, and they do not believe Iran's current terms are sufficient to produce an agreement consistent with U.S. interests.

This faction has pushed a policy direction aimed at limiting Iran's access to advanced weapons and related technologies through continuing economic sanctions, financial blockades and maritime interdictions. The United States also plans to launch a new operation to cut off overland routes Iran uses to transport weapons and technology.

For Trump, Iran has become a major political issue in his second term. In public statements over recent months, he has alternately threatened tougher action and repeatedly predicted that Iran would ultimately accept a U.S.-led deal. The White House now appears more inclined to focus on long-term pressure than to move quickly toward military conflict or sign a peace arrangement widely viewed as rushed.