TEHRAN – In a recent interview with American media, Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi offered President Trump some straightforward advice. He noted that previous American administrations have tried everything against Iran—sanctions, assassinations, and pressure—and that none of it worked. If Trump wants a deal, Araghchi said, he needs to engage with Iran differently.

“We respond to force with force, and answer respect with respect,” Araghchi explained. 

That message apparently didn't reach the White House.

On Saturday, Steve Witkoff, Trump's West Asia envoy and chief negotiator in nuclear talks with Iran, told Fox News that the president is genuinely confused, and doesn’t understand why Tehran won't just give in.

"The president asked me that this morning," Witkoff said. "He's curious as to why they haven't—I don't want to use the word 'capitulated'—but why they haven't capitulated."

Witkoff pointed to the growing American military buildup in the Persian Gulf and wondered why Tehran hasn't come forward to say, "Here's what we're prepared to do."

The Pentagon has reportedly presented Trump with military options should Iran refuse to grant the president all the concessions he seeks at the negotiating table—demands that include zero enrichment, caps on missiles, and severing ties with regional Resistance groups. Iran and the U.S. have so far held two rounds of nuclear negotiations, and while Iranians maintain they cannot accept Trump's excessive demands, they remain willing to show flexibility in areas that do not cross their red lines.

The pattern of U.S. pressure on Iran

From Iran's perspective, neither Trump's negotiating style nor the threats he has put on the table are new. Every president before him tried to bully Iran into surrendering its strategic assets and independence, and every single one has failed for over four decades running.

In his first term, Trump withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a nuclear accord that international inspectors confirmed Iran was complying with. He re-imposed stringent sanctions and, in 2020, ordered the assassination of Major General Qassem Soleimani, Iran's senior anti-terror commander. Iran retaliated with missile strikes on American bases in Iraq, bringing the two countries closer to direct conflict than at any point in decades. 

In his second term, Trump intensified this "maximum pressure" campaign. He entered into negotiations with Iran but then bombed those talks in June of 2025 following Iran's refusal to accept his excessive demands. He subsequently instigated and supported deadly riots inside Iran and after they failed to topple the Islamic Republic, he has now returned to the same negotiating table he bombed last year. 

Between the Trump presidencies, the Biden administration initially sought to reverse the escalation. Biden's envoy attempted to revive the JCPOA through negotiations in Vienna, but as the two sides were close to an agreement, Washington withdrew from the talks because it came to believe that the riots convulsing Iran in fall of 2022 would make the Iranian government collapse or at least compel to make more concessions. 

President Obama eventually secured the JCPOA, but only after a multilateral sanctions regime had severely weakened the Iranian economy. President Bush designated Iran as part of an "axis of evil" and became the first U.S. president to openly float imminent military aggression against Iran. President Clinton imposed a comprehensive U.S. trade embargo on Iran. The Reagan administration engaged in naval skirmishes with Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf, culminating in the USS Vincennes' downing of Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988, an attack that killed 290 civilians. 

Underpinning all of these events is the CIA-orchestrated coup in 1953, which overthrew Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, and reinstalled the Shah. 

The stakes of the current moment

If Trump refuses to offer a deal that is both respectful and mutually beneficial—one that acknowledges Iran's interests rather than demanding unconditional surrender—and instead opts for military aggression, he will replicate the miscalculation that has doomed American policy on Iran for decades.

He would be betting that pressure and military force can break a nation that has survived eight years of war with Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, decades of sanctions, the assassination of its commanders, and the constant presence of American warships in its waters. He would be betting that Iranians, who have historically transformed external threats into reasons for national unity, will finally decide to capitulate.

That bet has been placed before. It has always lost.

Trump has stated he does not want war and prefers a diplomatic resolution. However, seeking a genuine agreement and demanding surrender are fundamentally different objectives. If he follows the path of every president before him—if he confuses military power with leverage, and coercion with persuasion—he will repeat their failure.

And like them, he will be left wondering why Iran never gave in.