Trump, Iran, and the folly of demanding surrender

Iran is not a transient power that can be coerced into submission; it is a civilization with over 2,500 years of continuous history, shaped by a deep sense of identity, resilience, and pride. From the philosophical legacy of Avicenna to the poetic brilliance of Hafez and the scientific contributions of Al-Khwarizmi, Iran's imprint on global civilization is profound. Coupled with vast human and natural resources and a commanding geostrategic position, this history informs a national mindset that equates capitulation with existential defeat. To demand "unconditional surrender," as Trump has, is not only diplomatically reckless but culturally tone-deaf-such a demand is inherently unacceptable to Iran and ensures resistance, rather than compliance.

This is not to suggest that the Islamic-led government is benevolent and deserves every consideration. The government has committed egregious human rights violations, systematically repressing its population. It has killed thousands during recent protests, carried out widespread arbitrary arrests, and imposed severe restrictions on women's rights. Political dissent is routinely crushed through imprisonment, torture, and executions, reflecting a pattern of state-sanctioned brutality that continues unabated.

Negotiation requires mutual understanding

Nevertheless, effective negotiation does not require agreement with the other side's behavior, ideology, or political posture, but it does require genuine effort, even by adversaries, to understand that their positions have been heard and seriously considered. When a counterpart senses dismissal or indifference, they become far less inclined to engage, let alone compromise. Listening, therefore, is not a concession; it is a strategic necessity. By acknowledging the legitimacy of the other side's interests-even while contesting them-a negotiator creates the minimal trust required for negotiations to make progress.

The absence of trust

Iran's deep distrust of the United States-particularly under Trump-stems from a pattern of actions that have steadily eroded credibility. The withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, the assassination of General Soleimani in January 2020, and twice striking Iran even in the midst of negotiations in June 2025 and February 2026, have reinforced Tehran's belief that Trump cannot be trusted. No party will negotiate seriously when it anticipates duplicity at critical junctures.

Moreover, Trump's pattern of threatening to "annihilate" Iran, to bomb it "back to the stone age," and his repeated threats to attack civilian infrastructure-electric grids, bridges-as leverage to reach a deal in a day or two is absurd given the complexity and the far-reaching implications of the negotiations. Such coercion only deepens mistrust, hardens resistance, and effectively forecloses any realistic prospect of reaching a durable agreement.

Trump's rhetoric does not project strength; it signals recklessness and contempt, confirming to Iran's leadership that the US is willing to inflict indiscriminate harm. This reflects a fundamentally flawed approach to negotiation, as Iran sees little incentive to compromise with a counterpart it views as both hostile and untrustworthy, compounding its preexisting distrust.

Trust, however, cannot be demanded or negotiated; it must be carefully nurtured over time. For Iran to consider significant concessions, it must first feel secure. That requires credible assurances that the United States will refrain from military action and prevent Israeli strikes. Only within such a framework of guaranteed restraint can a fragile foundation of trust begin to emerge.

Iran's national security concerns

Iran does not seek a usable nuclear arsenal so much as the capability to assemble one quickly, creating a powerful deterrent against adversaries. In Tehran's strategic thinking, latent nuclear capability-rather than overt weaponization-offers insurance against regime-threatening attacks while avoiding the full international backlash that an open bomb program would trigger.

Iranian analysts also draw lessons from Ukraine, which surrendered the Soviet nuclear arsenal it inherited under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Russia likely would not have invaded had Ukraine retained its nuclear weapons. Iran likewise notes that Kim Jong Un's growing arsenal has effectively shielded his regime from serious external threats or regime change efforts. India and Pakistan, after three major conventional wars, have since limited their confrontations to skirmishes under the shadow of mutual nuclear deterrence.

This experience reinforces Tehran's belief that only a credible nuclear option, the clear ability to build one, can prevent similar aggression, and that relinquishing such deterrence would require far-reaching security guarantees that make Iran feel secure without the nuclear shadow.

Complex negotiations cannot be rushed

Serious negotiations with Iran, involving layers of nuclear, regional, and security issues, cannot be rushed through in a matter of days or weeks. The JCPOA took nearly 2.5 years to finalize, precisely because of its complexity and the depth of mistrust on both sides. Any administration that genuinely seeks a durable, comprehensive agreement must accept that time is not a luxury but a prerequisite for success.

If Trump wants a credible accord, he must halt hostilities, maintain the ceasefire throughout the talks, and allow trust to grow incrementally as negotiations proceed. Trying to force a deal on a short schedule cannot be taken seriously in Tehran. An accord reached under duress and against the clock will lack both legitimacy and staying power, and will almost certainly collapse at the first crisis.