Foad Izadi, a professor at Tehran University, said repeated threats of full-scale war from Donald Trump signal a lack of leverage over Iran.
The assessment suggests that U.S. military pressure has failed to produce the desired political concessions from Tehran. This indicates a potential gap between the rhetoric of the U.S. administration and its actual ability to influence Iranian policy through force.
Izadi's comments follow a period of active military engagement. The U.S. conducted a bombing campaign that lasted 37 days [1]. Despite the duration and intensity of these strikes, the professor said the actions did not force Iran into a state of capitulation [1].
According to Izadi, the reliance on ultimatums is an indicator of strategic failure. He said, "Trump's repeated threats of renewed full-scale war are a sign of weakness." This perspective posits that when a superpower must repeatedly threaten escalation, it reveals that previous efforts, including the recent bombing campaign, did not achieve their primary objectives [1].
The dynamic between the two nations remains tense as the U.S. continues to weigh its options regarding Iranian regional influence. The failure of the 37-day campaign [1] to shift Tehran's position has led some analysts to question the effectiveness of the current U.S. strategy.
Izadi's analysis emphasizes that the cycle of threats and military action has not yet broken the resolve of the Iranian government. The persistence of these ultimatums serves as a marker for the current stalemate in diplomatic and military relations between the U.S. and Iran [1].
“Trump's repeated threats of renewed full-scale war are a sign of weakness.”
The shift from targeted military action to repeated threats of full-scale war suggests a diminishing return on military pressure. If a 37-day bombing campaign fails to secure capitulation, the U.S. may find itself in a position where it must either escalate to a level of conflict it wishes to avoid or seek new diplomatic levers to achieve its goals.
