By Eric Vandenbroeck and co-workers

 The assumption that pressure alone can break Tehran is not a strategy

Iran’s hardline regime is known to have compromised only twice in its 47-year history. And US President Donald Trump is well known to climb down after issuing outsized threats, all in the name of negotiations.

So, will Trump force Iran to capitulate, or will he blink first as the clock ticks down on his latest ultimatum?

As it stands, the US has threatened to launch massive strikes after 8 pm on April 7 and destroy Iran’s infrastructure, power plants, and bridges by midnight.

“The entire country could be taken out in one night, and it might be tomorrow night (April 7),” Trump said during a press conference at the White House on April 6.

Iran has not publicly flinched. Even as talks facilitated by regional mediators continue behind the scenes, Tehran says it will bomb Arab nations’ energy and water facilities if it is attacked.

Trump’s conditions for a ceasefire, after several flip-flops during the war, now into the 39th day, have boiled down to two key asks: Iran must never own a nuclear weapon, and it must let ships sail the Strait of Hormuz freely again.

What are the chances of a deal materializing before Trump’s arbitrary deadline?

Not bright at all.

Iran has already rejected the latest US proposal for a 45-day ceasefire that provided for further negotiations to end the war. It wants a permanent end, not a temporary ceasefire. In addition, it has requested reparations for the damage caused and the lifting of US sanctions on its economy.

Iran’s counterproposals are “not good enough” for Trump, who also said it was “highly unlikely” that he would extend his deadline again.

Asked if he was exiting the war or escalating it, Trump told reporters: “I can’t tell you… it depends (on) what they do.”

People are looking at the damaged B1 highway bridge in Karaj, Iran, near Tehran.

 

Netanyahu against the ceasefire deal

Another reason that a truce is unlikely is that Israel, which is jointly conducting the military operation with the US against Iran, opposes it. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is believed to have warned Trump against striking a ceasefire deal.

So, unless Trump decides to exit the war on his own, perhaps after unilaterally declaring victory, the bloodiest phase of the war is about to unfold.

History suggests Tehran will overplay its hand. It held American diplomats hostage for 444 days, humiliating the US at the cost of its international standing. It prolonged its ruinous war with Iraq. It praised Hamas’ Oct 7 attack (on Israel), leading to the destruction of its proxies.

Trump wants a quick deal. The regime, for both ideological and structural reasons, cannot make one,  he said.

Trump has failed to grasp the nature of the Islamic Republic. The opaque, theocratic regime would rather let the country be destroyed than give up power or dilute ideology.

The President is hemmed in by US laws, as well as by approval ratings, if not by concerns over potential war crimes.

Over 47 years, the Islamic Republic has made only two major compromises.

The first was its 1988 decision to end the eight-year Iran-Iraq war in which an estimated 200,000 Iranians were killed. It was a concession that then Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini likened to drinking poison.

The damaged Shahid Beheshti University in Tehran following a strike on April 4. US-Israeli strikes have hit more than 30 universities across the country since the war broke out in late February.

The second was the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration with Iran’s moderate president, Hassan Rouhani. It limited Iran’s uranium enrichment to 3.67 per cent, capped stockpiles, and enhanced international monitoring in exchange for sanctions relief.

The limit was designed to ensure that Iran’s nuclear programme remained for civilian energy and research purposes, as 3.67 per cent is far below weapon-grade levels.

In both cases, the deals came after Iran faced existential economic pressure and was offered a diplomatic exit that did not require it to abandon its revolutionary identity.

Trump has offered the pressure without a clear exit, said Sadjadpour.

 

Pressure alone cannot break Iran; it is wishful thinking.

Strikes on infrastructure would not produce capitulation. 

They would invite retaliation, reinforce regime resolve, and likely trigger escalation across the region. The assumption that pressure alone can break Tehran is not a strategy; it is wishful thinking.

A negotiated outcome will almost certainly require accommodating at least some Iranian demands. The alternative is a broader military campaign that promises no decisive end state.

There will be no ‘shock and awe’ moment that resolves the Iran problem, he added.

The choices for Washington are between an imperfect deal and an open-ended confrontation.

But heavier strikes will only expand the conflict instead of winding it down.

They impose major harm on civilians, expand retaliation across the Gulf, and deepen global blame on Washington. That strengthens Iran’s position, not weakens it,” he said on X.

As it was the US that struck first on Feb 28, he said, Iran’s moves are seen globally as a response, not aggression.

Emergency personnel working near a damaged building at an impact site, following a barrage of missiles launched from Iran, in Tel Aviv, Israel, on April 6.

 

A ‘win’ for both the US and Iran

Amid the rising alarm over the possibility of an extended war, Iran’s former foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has made an unusual suggestion that the time is right for Iran to strike a comprehensive deal with the US.

Tehran should use its upper hand, not to keep fighting, but to declare victory and make a deal that both ends this conflict and prevents the next one.

It should offer to place limits on its nuclear program and to reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for an end to all sanctions administration under which Iran agreed to renounce its nuclear weapons option in return for the lifting of economic sanctions.

Iran should also be prepared to accept a mutual non-aggression pact with the US in which both countries pledge not to strike each other in the future. It could offer economic interactions with the US, which would be a win for both the American and the Iranian people.

All these outcomes would enable Iranian officials to focus less on protecting their country from foreign adversaries and more on improving the lives of their people.

The plan would also offer a timely off-ramp for Trump, and the rising political liability for the US leader from surging petrol prices caused by the war.

 

 

For updates click hompage here