Iran Will Not Surrender to Trump’s Threats

As Donald Trump returns to the White House, he brings with him a familiar pattern of threats, sanctions, and ultimatums. The revival of his so-called “maximum pressure” strategy signals a continuation of Washington’s long-standing policy of coercion, a policy that has consistently failed to subjugate Iran. Trump’s demand for negotiations is nothing more than an attempt to force Iran into submission, leveraging economic warfare and military threats as bargaining tools. Tehran, however, has made its position clear: it will never negotiate under duress, nor will it compromise its sovereignty to appease an American administration that has proven, time and again, that it cannot be trusted.

Trump’s approach, like that of his predecessors, is built on the flawed assumption that Iran can be bullied into accepting Washington’s demands. This assumption ignores both history and reality. For over four decades, Iran has resisted U.S. pressure, from the Iran-Iraq War to the long list of sanctions designed to cripple its economy. The Islamic Republic has endured assassinations of its scientists, cyberattacks on its infrastructure, and military provocations in the Persian Gulf. Each time, Iran has emerged stronger, more self-reliant, and more determined to defend its national interests. If the first round of Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign did not break Iran, why does he believe a second attempt will yield different results?

The nuclear issue remains central to Trump’s rhetoric, but his arguments are based on deliberate distortions. He claims that Iran must provide guarantees that it will not develop nuclear weapons, ignoring the fact that such guarantees already exist. The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a binding religious decree— a fatwa—prohibiting the production, possession,´-or-use of nuclear weapons. Iran remains a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has repeatedly cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Even after Trump unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, Iran continued to abide by the agreement for a full year, demonstrating its commitment to diplomatic solutions. If Trump were genuinely concerned about nuclear proliferation, he would address the actual threats in the region instead of fabricating one where none exists.

Iran’s nuclear program has always been about peaceful energy production, scientific advancement, and national sovereignty. It has been subjected to relentless scrutiny, far more than any other country in the region, yet no evidence has ever been found to suggest that Tehran seeks nuclear weapons. The notion that Iran is on the verge of weaponization is a convenient myth, perpetuated by those who seek to justify perpetual hostility. If Iran had intended to build a nuclear weapon, it could have done so decades ago. Instead, it has chosen a path of restraint, despite facing existential threats from nuclear-armed adversaries in the region. The real question is not why Iran insists on its right to nuclear technology, but why the United States and its allies believe they have the authority to dictate Iran’s scientific progress.

Beyond the nuclear issue, Trump’s administration is once again fixated on weakening Iran’s regional alliances. Washington and its media echo chambers continue to push the false narrative that Iran operates through “proxies” and “agents,” as if the resistance movements in Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, and Iraq are mere extensions of Tehran’s will. This distortion ignores the reality that these groups are independent actors, making their own decisions based on their national and strategic interests. Iran does not dictate their policies, nor does it force them into confrontation. These movements exist not because of Iranian influence, but because of the oppressive realities they face—occupation, foreign intervention, and economic strangulation.

Hezbollah in Lebanon, for instance, did not emerge because of Iran-;- it was a response to the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. The Houthis in Yemen did not take up arms at Iran’s request-;- they did so in reaction to years of foreign intervention and blockade. The Palestinian resistance is not an Iranian creation-;- it is the natural consequence of decades of Israeli aggression and displacement. Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) were not formed on Iranian orders-;- they rose to defend their country against ISIS, a terrorist organization that grew under the watchful eye of U.S. policymakers. To suggest that these groups are nothing more than Iranian pawns is to deny them agency and ignore the root causes of their struggles.

Trump’s renewed threats of military action reveal the true nature of his policy: a strategy not of diplomacy, but of intimidation. He has repeatedly stated that if Iran does not comply with his demands, military options remain “on the table.” This rhetoric is nothing new. Every U.S. administration since 1979 has, at some point, entertained the idea of attacking Iran. Yet each time, they have come to the same realization: a war with Iran would be catastrophic, not just for the region, but for global stability.

Iran is not an isolated state that can be bombed into submission. It is a nation with a vast network of strategic alliances, a powerful military, and a population that has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to resist foreign aggression. Any attack on Iran would trigger a regional conflict of unprecedented scale, drawing in actors from across the Middle East. The Persian Gulf, a vital artery for global energy supplies, would become a battleground. U.S. bases in the region would be immediate targets. The idea that such a conflict could be contained is a dangerous illusion.

Despite Trump’s hostility, Iran remains open to diplomacy—but only diplomacy that is conducted in good faith. Tehran has always been willing to engage in dialogue based on mutual respect, as evidenced by its adherence to the JCPOA before Washington’s betrayal. However, negotiations cannot take place under threats, sanctions, and ultimatums. Trump’s demand that Iran return to the table while his administration continues to strangle the Iranian economy is not an invitation to dialogue—it is an attempt at coercion. Iran will not engage in talks while its people suffer under sanctions designed to create hardship and instability. If Washington truly seeks an agreement, it must first abandon its illusions of dominance and recognize Iran as an equal partner, not a subject to be subdued.

The first iteration of “maximum pressure” did not bring Iran to its knees. It did not force Tehran to abandon its regional alliances, nor did it halt its nuclear advancements. Instead, it led to a stronger, more resilient Iran, one that has adapted to economic warfare and developed deeper ties with non-Western partners. If Trump believes that a second round of the same failed strategy will yield different results, he is gravely mistaken. Iran has withstood sanctions, threats, and military pressure for decades. It will not surrender now.

As long as Washington continues down this path, the prospects for a peaceful resolution will remain bleak. Trump may believe that he can force Iran into submission, but history tells a different story. Iran does not retreat in the face of aggression. It does not negotiate from a position of weakness. If the United States genuinely wants a new understanding with Iran, it must abandon the politics of intimidation and accept that the Islamic Republic is here to stay. Until that reality is acknowledged, Iran will stand firm, as it always has, against threats, pressure, and coercion.

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 2