Nobel for Trump? If there were a prize for negotiation, the Iranians would win it

We’ve seen this movie before — Donald Trump versus Iran — about a decade ago. Still, it’s hard to deny that the opening scene of the US president’s second term was particularly strong, raising hopes that this time, the ending would be different.

Indeed, Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal nearly a decade ago, calling for increased international pressure on the Islamic Republic. But his declarations and threats were not matched by action. As a result, Iran was able to proceed undeterred and ultimately achieve its strategic goal of becoming a nuclear threshold state — just months, or at most a few years, away from obtaining an atomic bomb.

When Trump returned to the White House this past January, he appeared to be a different man — more experienced, more resolute, and, most of all, more confident. He wasted no time issuing an ultimatum to the Iranians: Accept his terms, abandon their nuclear program, and stop supporting terrorist organizations in Yemen and Lebanon — or face the “gates of hell.”

But as high as the expectations were, so too was the surprise, and even astonishment, when it turned out that Trump was the one who blinked first. Iran rejected his threats, continued to support the Houthis and Hezbollah, and persisted in its calls for the destruction of Israel — and even the US. Yet the American response to Iran’s defiance was to announce the opening of negotiations, effectively granting legitimacy and encouragement to the ayatollah regime in Tehran.

The president’s actions raise questions about his true intentions and goals. Whom should we believe? President Trump, who promised to strike Iran if it failed to comply and dismantle its nuclear program — statements backed by an unprecedented US military buildup in the Middle East, including more ships, aircraft, weapons and troops in preparation for a possible clash? Or perhaps we should heed the words of his vice president, JD Vance, who declared his opposition to war with Iran, arguing it would be a costly and wasteful endeavor that does not serve American interests?

Trump is a shrewd businessman, but it’s worth remembering: If there were a Nobel Prize for negotiation, the Iranians would undoubtedly win it. For three decades, they have negotiated with the US, successfully deceiving it, buying time, and slowly but steadily advancing their nuclear ambitions, building military strength and terrorist proxies that threaten regional and global stability.

Trump must remember that he is not negotiating with a Western-minded rival who thinks in terms of profit and loss. He is dealing with a radical Islamic regime whose only real difference from Yahya Sinwar is that Tehran is in no rush. It is prepared to show pragmatism and flexibility — but only if it serves its long-term goal, which remains the destruction of Israel and the imposition of Iranian hegemony over the Middle East.

It is a mistake to view the Iranian nuclear question as the whole story. It is merely a symptom of the deeper illness: the existence of a radical regime that sponsors terrorism throughout the Middle East, develops a long-range missile arsenal, and ultimately seeks nuclear weapons.

If we fail to address the root cause, then we have done nothing at all. Iran aims to buy time, as it has already become a nuclear threshold state. That’s why it is willing to negotiate and even sign a deal in which it pledges not to take that final step toward becoming a nuclear-armed state.

In exchange for this “Iranian concession,” the regime demands the lifting of the sanctions that are choking its economy. But there is no greater mistake than accepting Iran’s proposals. All that remains is to hope that Trump also understands there is no room for dialogue or agreements with the Iranian regime. It must be struck, and its nuclear project must be destroyed — not frozen or delayed.