President Donald Trump has adopted a different approach to dealing with Iran because he has a different view of the conflict. Previous US presidents believed that economic pressure and negotiations would be enough to force Iran to give up its nuclear program and its support for militias.
Trump, by contrast, believes that only pressure underpinned by force can work with Iran. He saw former President Jimmy Carter as a weak leader who had embarrassed the United States during the hostage crisis. His convictions have not changed. He acted on this belief in the principle of negotiation through strength in June by destroying Iran’s nuclear reactors and then, again, with the strikes that began on February 28, 2026.
For its part, Iran adopted a policy of “absorbing the blows” and a strategy that included targeting infrastructure in neighboring Gulf states, disrupting navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, and expanding its confrontation with Israel through ballistic missiles and via its allies, such as Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iraqi militias.
Iran’s strategy for countering Donald Trump’s application of “negotiation through strength” aimed to compel the president to engage in a negotiation among equals. Talks were eventually held in Pakistan. Backed by Europe and China, the talks were an attempt to negotiate a compromise, an exercise that Iran has mastered after decades of engagement with the Americans, Europeans, Chinese, and Russians.
Iran saw the attendance of the US vice president as a sign that its negotiating formula had worked and that it could secure a diplomatic victory. However, this assumption ran up against Trump’s core principle. After what he sees as a military victory, Trump does not believe that Iran is in a position to impose its terms. The Americans dismissed Iran’s three demands: an end to Israel’s war against Hezbollah, recognition of Tehran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz, and the continuation of peaceful nuclear enrichment. Instead, US negotiators insisted that Iran commit to not seeking nuclear weapons or even the capacity to develop nuclear weapons quickly.
The Iranian delegation believed it could use delay tactics to drag out the talks and split them into multiple tracks. But Vice President Vance stood firm: either Iran accepts the American offer or the talks become pointless. Pakistani and Iranian officials were surprised to see the American delegation leave Pakistan the next morning as they expected negotiations to continue for a second day.
As the talks were still underway, American warships had been clearing mines along the Strait of Hormuz. Donald Trump sent a clear signal: the talks were not a priority, and it made little difference to him whether or not a deal would be reached. His move reflected a commitment to negotiation through strength, and it left Iran with almost no room for maneuver as continuing to absorb blows, however painful, became its only option.
The question now is: what options does Iran have? There are three: resume negotiations, escalate to total war, or face a naval blockade.
Resuming negotiations would entail abandoning its nuclear program once and for all and agreeing to strict oversight. That would open the door to talks in which Iran holds few meaningful cards, and it would ultimately force Iran to become a “normal state” rather than a “revolutionary” actor.
The second option, war, would pose an existential threat to the regime itself. It would be the primary target of a war Iran cannot win.
The third option is a naval blockade. Simply put, this means no oil goes out, and no oil goes in. Without the Strait of Hormuz as leverage and cut off its oil exports, this option would force Iran into escalation and a disastrous war.
The challenge of confronting Iran is that the repercussions will not be confined within its borders, leaking to neighboring countries and beyond. The Gulf states have already shown they can defend themselves against attacks from Tehran and can develop practical alternatives to the Strait. Operating jointly and drawing on its broader geographic depth, the Gulf states can continue exporting large volumes of oil while adapting to changing conditions.
For global actors, especially in Asia, options are limited. They can either become more dependent on oil from Russia and the Americas, including supplies routed through Red Sea ports, or coordinate (alongside European partners) to open the Strait of Hormuz by any means necessary.
Trump has held on to its principle of strength in this confrontation, and Iran remains committed to confrontation. The difference, this time, is that, unlike those of the past, this American president is not deterred by escalation. He is willing to keep it isolated from the international system. Trump has taken the initiative with this current conflict, and he is now in a position to escalate or de-escalate, to call for negotiations and then walk away, and to accuse Iran of undermining the global economy.
Given this shift, Iran’s options are narrowing. It can either stick to its current doctrine or begin to operate as a normal state that enjoys peace and cooperates with its neighbors.
