“President Trump wonders why they do not surrender. I do not want to use the word surrender, but why have they not surrendered?”
“Why, under this kind of pressure, and with all this naval power we have there, have they not come to us and said: we declare that we do not want to possess the weapon?”
“Trump asked me this morning about Iran’s red lines in the negotiations and he, I do not want to use the word frustrated, because he knows he has many other options.”
These remarks were made by Steve Witkoff, the American real estate developer who became a diplomatic intermediary in the Middle East, during televised statements broadcast last Sunday.
Did these statements unintentionally strengthen Iran’s negotiating position and send a message that President Trump, who believes power will make the world kneel at his feet, appears unable to enforce the threats he has issued for months? He is neither capable of entering a comprehensive war against Iran that ends, as he has repeatedly said, with regime change, nor able to convince Iran to expand the scope of concessions in the nuclear file so that he may boast of achieving a historic agreement surpassing that of former Democratic President Barack Obama.
Trump’s available options thus far compel reflection on the Iranian mindset managing negotiations under immense pressure and amid highly adverse regional and international conditions. These were summarised by Emirati academic Dr Abdulkhaleq Abdullah in a controversial post on 22 February, in which he wrote: “Iran is exhausted, has lost most of its negotiating cards and is on the verge of accepting 90 per cent of President Trump’s conditions, most notably: 1) diluted nuclear programme, 2) dismantling long range ballistic missiles, 3) no more exporting the revolution, 4) unconditional opening to American companies and investments. Despite that, an attack on Iran remains 50 per cent likely due to lack of trust in Iran.”
The drums of war have intensified to the point that Zionist Jewish media figure Mark Levin, who once described Trump in a striking scene with his hand on his shoulder as the first Jewish president of America, published a video that Trump later reposted. In it, Levin called for halting negotiations and refusing to sign any agreement. “The issue is not signing an agreement or negotiations. The question is why negotiate? Will we subdue them and bring them under control? No. What if we sign an agreement today and a weak Republican or a Democrat comes to power? They will develop the nuclear bomb and produce thousands of ballistic missiles again. They are in a very weak state now. The problem is not negotiations or agreements. The problem is this regime, which must be eliminated.”
Returning to reality, far from the illusions of Abdulkhaleq Abdullah or the incitement of Mark Levin, the situation according to clear American military language indicates that the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Daniel Caine, warned against striking Iran. He reportedly stated that there are major risks and the possibility of becoming embroiled in a prolonged conflict. Trump responded publicly, saying that what was attributed to the general was pure fabrication and misleading news. “The general does not want it, but he guarantees an easy victory if we decide to confront,” Trump added, declaring, “I am the decision maker.”
Who, then, appears weak or hesitant and fearful, not of defeat, but of repeating what followed the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities in 2025? At that time, Trump claimed the Iranian nuclear programme had been completely eliminated, while some American media outlets contradicted him, prompting him to dismiss them as false and misleading.
After previously announcing the end of Iran’s nuclear programme, his envoy Steve Witkoff later stated that “Iran is one week away from developing a nuclear bomb,” implying the necessity, even inevitability, of bombing it before the end of the current week. The question is not whether Iran will be bombed under such claims, which evoke memories of allegations about Iraq’s possession of chemical weapons that were never discovered despite the American invasion 23 years ago. The question is whether such a strike would succeed or resemble its counterpart last year.
The region remains overshadowed by the atmosphere of war and the anticipated chaos should Iran be attacked. By attack, this includes full scale war, ground intervention, the removal of regime figures and perhaps a repetition of the 2003 Iraq scenario. Military build ups are unprecedented. Hundreds of fighter jets, aircraft carriers, warships and nearly 40,000 soldiers have reportedly been deployed, in addition to forces already stationed at bases across the Arab world.
Such numbers may suffice for an initial strike, but the United States would likely require multiples of the forces sent to Iraq in 2003, when 180,000 troops were deployed on the ground, including 130,000 Americans and around 50,000 British and Australian troops. The circumstances differ. In Iraq, Iran and Shiite groups provided various forms of support to invading forces. It is difficult to imagine a similar advantage within Iran if war were launched. Moreover, claims that the Iranian regime is weak are contradicted by reports that it killed 10,000 citizens during recent protests, an indication of the extent of force it may resort to in confronting internal unrest during wartime.
Even if the regime were isolated through assassination or abduction, as some speculate, Iran’s alternative chain of command is reportedly prepared in advance. This is likened to Hezbollah’s ability to compensate for leadership losses following the assassination of Secretary General Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah and, ten days later, the killing of his designated successor Hashem Safieddine. This demonstrates the speed with which leadership structures can absorb and recover from blows. The question then arises: what of a state the size of Iran?
The secret behind Iran’s refusal to surrender may lie in a statement by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on 15 February. He said: “We are now dealing with radical Shiite clerics. We are dealing with people who make political and geopolitical decisions based on purely religious foundations. This is complicated. No one has ever succeeded in reaching an agreement with Iran, but we will try.”
The resistance in Gaza endured for two consecutive years against a war resembling a global confrontation. East and West aligned against the resistance and against the Palestinian people, yet the resistance remained steadfast, confronting the occupation army alone, backed by advanced American and Western weaponry and supported politically and through media by neighbouring states. Such steadfastness is inspiring for any nation or state possessing an army, history and combat experience in the region.
There is no doubt that war brings destruction, loss and renewed backwardness. This is what Iran seeks to avoid by offering what it considers acceptable concessions in the nuclear file without relinquishing what it views as its natural right to nuclear capability, as possessed by the occupying entity, India, Pakistan and others. However, if war is imposed, the alternatives appear limited to confrontation or the chaos sought by Netanyahu and his allies.
Let us wait and see what the coming days bring for America, the world and this afflicted region.
