Who will blink first? Trump wants talks to end war, but Iran won’t bow easily to pressure

Summary

• Trump threatens massive strikes on Iran, demanding it never owns nuclear weapons and allows free passage in the Strait of Hormuz.
• Iran rejects the US proposal for a ceasefire, demanding a permanent end to the war, reparations, and the lifting of sanctions.
• Analysts suggest strikes will escalate the conflict, and a deal requires accommodating Iranian demands, urging a comprehensive agreement.

Follow our live coverage here.

PHILADELPHIA – 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 Mr 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 8pm on April 7 (8am on April 8, Singapore time) 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),” Mr 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.

Mr 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 materialising before Mr 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 asked for reparations for the damage caused and for the lifting of US sanctions on its economy.

Iran’s counterproposals are “not good enough” for Mr 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, Mr Trump told reporters: “I can’t tell you… it depends (on) what they do.” 

Netanyahu against 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 Mr Trump against striking a ceasefire deal.

So, unless Mr 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,” said Mr Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“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,” he wrote on X.

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

Mr Trump has failed to grasp the nature of the Islamic Republic, he said, adding that 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, Mr Sadjadpour noted. 

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 second was the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration with Iran’s moderate president, Mr 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. 

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

Pressure alone can break Iran is ‘wishful thinking’

Mr Dennis Citrinowicz, another noted Iran analyst, said 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 strategy, it is wishful thinking,” he said on X.

“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,” said Mr Citrinowicz, a former Israeli intelligence officer who studied Iran and is now an analyst with the Atlantic Council in Washington and the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv.

“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, Mr Citrinowicz said.

But heavier strikes will only expand the conflict instead of winding it down, according to Professor Robert Pape, a political scientist who studies military strategy at the University of Chicago.

“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.

A ‘win’ for both 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, Mr Zarif wrote in an essay published in the Foreign Affairs magazine.

“It should offer to place limits on its nuclear programme and to reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for an end to all sanctions – (a) deal Washington wouldn’t take before but might accept now,” said Mr Zarif, who was the chief negotiator of the 2015 deal struck with the Obama 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 to not 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,” he added. 

“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 Mr Trump, he suggested, noting the rising political liability for the US leader from surging petrol prices caused by the war.