Trump’s Plan to Force an Iranian Surrender and Tehran’s Red Lines

The U.S. President should consult history before committing what may prove to be the costliest foreign policy blunder of his term.

While Donald Trump’s domestic authority has been rattled by the shooting involving ICE agents in Minnesota and rising inflation triggered by his tariffs, he is still perceived internationally as holding a position of strength.

He has exerted significant pressure on NATO to reach a “framework” for a future agreement regarding Greenland, which reportedly—though later vehemently denied—included Denmark ceding sovereignty over areas designated for U.S. bases. Furthermore, he has forced European nations to shoulder a larger portion of their defense spending.

Following the arrest of President Nicolás Maduro, Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that Venezuela would reset its economic policies. Trump has also pressured Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to halt the war in Gaza, establishing his own “Peace Council” for the enclave.

In Trump’s view, this constitutes a record of success.

Now, he is amassing a fleet of ships and bombers in preparation for a second strike against Iran in less than a year, believing he can replicate his Venezuelan strategy with the Islamic Republic.

In this assessment, Trump is profoundly mistaken. Yet, he remains convinced of the rationality of his stance. His envoy, Steve Witkoff, and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, reportedly informed a regional power of Trump’s envisioned plan: a swift, surgical airstrike to decapitate the leadership while leaving the state apparatus intact.

Trump is also convinced that the timing is optimal. He perceives the Islamic Republic as fundamentally weakened by the airstrikes he ordered last year, coupled with a second massive wave of national unrest over the past three years.

In evaluating Iran’s supposed vulnerabilities, Trump relies on two primary sources: his own intelligence assessments and those of Israel. However, Israeli intelligence is driven by fundamentally different objectives. Netanyahu seeks regime change, not merely symbolic or limited strikes. For decades, he has maintained that Hamas and Hezbollah serve as Iran’s “aircraft carriers.”

Both Trump and Netanyahu are currently experiencing the euphoria of power following their military operations, each believing himself to be the undisputed master of the field.

As for Iran, why does it maintain such rigid “red lines” in negotiations, refusing to offer concessions even as the U.S. offers to lift sanctions and allow Iranian oil back into global markets?

The reality is that Iranian exports currently face massive hurdles. China, the primary buyer, receives Iranian oil at steep discounts. Meanwhile, traditional importers like India, Turkey, South Korea, and Japan have ceased purchases entirely.

The Iranians appear to be vividly recalling the experience of the Shah’s era. After U.S. and British intelligence services toppled Mohammad Mosaddegh’s government in 1954, the Shah signed an oil agreement with Western firms. Control over Iranian oil passed to an international consortium including U.S. giants (Mobil, Chevron, Exxon, Texaco), British firms (BP, Royal Dutch Shell), and France’s Total.

Under that arrangement, Iran received only 50% of its oil profits. Even when the Shah nationalized the industry in 1973 by buying out foreign stakes, the move failed to revitalize the economy.

Should sanctions be lifted, the Trump administration would likely attempt to apply the same scenario used in Venezuela: allowing oil sales only to approved nations, with revenues deposited into accounts controlled by the Federal Reserve.

Consequently, the issue of sovereign control over oil and its revenues is not a technical negotiating point for Iran; it is a matter of national sovereignty and strategic welfare concerning future generations.

Yesterday, the first round of U.S.-Iranian negotiations in Oman concluded without a definitive result, though it succeeded in cooling regional tensions, if only temporarily. While both sides praised the trajectory of the talks, optimism remains premature.

Simultaneously, Trump has imposed new sanctions, including 25% tariffs on countries that maintain economic ties with Iran. These measures do not just tighten the noose around Tehran; they threaten Iran’s regional and global partners as well.

Ultimately, the Iranian side views the entire negotiation process through a lens of profound mistrust toward its American counterpart.