Trump’s THREAT Game FAILS? Why Iran Keeps Hitting Back Despite Relentless U.S. Strikes

[00:00:07]Donald Trump has a style of diplomacy that the world now knows very well. He doesn't begin with negotiations. He begins with pressure. Then comes a warning. If that doesn't work, the warning becomes a threat. And if the threat doesn't work either, the military steps in. That is exactly what the world is witnessing once again in the last US-Iran confrontation. President Donald Trump has now issued perhaps his strongest warning yet. He says that every single attack by Iran on ships passing through the Strait of [music] Hormuz will invite a direct American response. Not just any response. Trump says [music] the United States will destroy one bridge or one power plant near Tehran every single time Iran attacks a commercial ship. It doesn't matter whether Iran uses a missile, a drone, or even a rocket. Trump's message is simple. One attack, one major piece of Iranian infrastructure destroyed. It sounds like deterrence, but here's the big question. Has this strategy actually [music] worked so far for the US? Let's look at the past few weeks. Every time Washington has raised the stakes, Iran has responded by raising them, too. The United States struck Iranian military facilities. Iran [music] answered with missiles and drones targeting American bases. The US widened its targets. Iran widened its battlefield. American strikes moved beyond military sites to roads, ports, bridges, [music] and infrastructure. Iran expanded attacks beyond Iraq and Syria targeting American interests and partners across the Gulf.

[00:01:42]The United States says it will not stop.

[00:01:45]Iran says it will not surrender. This is no longer just a retaliation. That is becoming what strategists [music] call an escalation ladder. Each side climbs one step higher. The other side refuses to stay below, and eventually both sides reach a point where climbing down becomes politically harder than climbing further up. That is why many analysts say this conflict is becoming increasingly difficult to control.

[00:02:12]>> [music] >> It brings to mind Mahatma Gandhi's famous warning, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Gandhi was speaking about violence feeding more violence. Today, the Middle East appears trapped in exactly that cycle. One strike invites another. One threat produces a bigger threat. Neither side wants to appear weak, but both sides are paying a growing price. Now, let's understand why the Strait of Hormuz has become the center of this confrontation.

[00:02:43]Many people ask a simple question. Does the Strait of Hormuz actually belong to Iran?

[00:02:50]>> [music] >> The answer is, "No." The Strait of Hormuz is an international waterway. It is a narrow passage connecting the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian [music] Sea.

[00:03:00]Its northern coastline is controlled by Iran. The southern side is shared by Oman and the United Arab Emirates.

[00:03:07]Because it is an international strait, international law allows commercial ships from all countries to pass through it. No single country owns it. However, Iran occupies one side of this narrow passage. That gives Tehran enormous strategic leverage. [music] Nearly 1/5 of the world's oil exports pass through Hormuz. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE all depend heavily on this [music] route. If Hormuz slows down, global oil prices rise, insurance costs increase, shipping companies become nervous, fuel becomes more expensive, and economies thousands of kilometers away, from India to Europe to America, feel the pinch. That is why Iran often describes [music] Hormuz as one of its strongest bargaining chips.

[00:03:58]Whenever sanctions [music] tighten or military pressure increases, Tehran reminds the world that it has the capability to disrupt one of the most important energy routes on earth, the Strait of Hormuz.

[00:04:10]Now comes another important question. If Iran negotiated with President Barack Obama in 2015, why is it refusing to accept the current memorandum of understanding under Donald Trump? To understand that, we need to go back a decade.

[00:04:24]In 2015, Iran and six world powers signed what became known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or the nuclear deal. Under the agreement, Iran accepted strict limits on its nuclear program. In return, international sanctions were eased. The deal wasn't perfect, but it created predictability.

[00:04:44]Iran received economic relief. The West received greater oversight of Iran's nuclear [music] activities. Then came a major turning point. In 2018, during his first presidency, Donald Trump withdrew the United States from that agreement.

[00:04:58]Washington argued the deal [music] was too weak and failed to address Iran's missile program and regional influence.

[00:05:05]The Trump administration instead adopted a policy of maximum pressure through tougher sanctions. From Tehran's perspective, this changed everything.

[00:05:15]>> [music] >> Iran's leaders now argue that they cannot simply trust another American promise.

[00:05:21]Their reasoning is straightforward. If one US president signs an agreement and the next president tears it up, what guarantee exists that a future agreement will survive another election?

[00:05:33]That trust deficit hangs over every negotiation today.

[00:05:36]Which is why even though both Washington and Tehran continue sending [music] diplomatic signals through intermediaries, neither side appears ready to make the first major compromise. And that leaves us with the bigger question. Is Trump's threat-based approach making America safer or making the region more dangerous?

[00:05:57]Supporters argue that only overwhelming pressure can force Iran to change its behavior. [music] Critics counter that repeated threats encourage Iran to harden its position, expand [music] retaliation, and rally domestic support against external pressure. History offers examples for both arguments.

[00:06:16]Military pressure has at times brought adversaries to the negotiation table, but prolonged cycles of escalation have also led to conflicts that neither side originally intended to fight. Today, the risk [music] is that every new threat narrows the space for diplomacy. When leaders publicly promise retaliation, backing down becomes politically costly, and that [music] increases the danger of miscalculation.

[00:06:43]The coming weeks may therefore decide whether the Middle East moves back toward negotiations or slips further into a conflict where [music] every strike invites another. Every threat demands a response, and Gandhi's [music] warning that an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind becomes [music] less a moral lesson and more a geopolitical reality.

[00:07:18]>> [music] >> Subscribe to Oneindia and never miss an update.

[00:07:24]Download the Oneindia app now.

[00:07:26]>> [music]