Legal scholar Steven Calabresi argues that former President Trump’s approach to Iran policy during his administration was justified, particularly in its emphasis on maximum pressure and skepticism toward diplomacy. He contends that the strategy aimed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional influence, framing it as a necessary counter to what he describes as Tehran’s aggressive actions. Critics, however, question whether the policy’s reliance on unilateral measures and sanctions effectively achieved lasting stability or merely escalated tensions. The debate highlights differing views on how best to address Iran’s nuclear program and its role in the Middle East.
Steven Calabresi gets it only half right in his defense of Trump's handling of the Iran war
