Maximum pressure: How Trump spent five years proving Obama was right about Iran

Tomorrow, Friday June 19, will mark yet another historic day in the international community’s decades-long preoccupation with Iran’s nuclear program—an assumed ghoul that, despite endless Western hyperbole, never actually materialized into a weapon. With the signing of a memorandum of understanding in Geneva between Washington and Tehran, the true history being made tomorrow is not the substance of the agreement itself, but the spectacular, ironic collapse of Washington’s “Maximum Pressure” strategy—or rather Trump’s endless boasting about American power and his tactical use of force, besides calling himself the God of all deals!

It has taken Donald Trump five long years—counting his first term, a prolific barrage of senseless social media threats, and rhetoric warning that “whole civilisation will die tonight”—to state the obvious.

After bringing the Middle East to the precipice of a devastating, full-scale war and severely tarnishing America’s international reputation, the White House has arrived at the exact same conclusion reached by the Obama-Biden administration back in 2015.

It is a conclusion that took the combined effort of the entire West, Russia, and China decades to solidify: Iran’s nuclear file can only be managed or suspended not ended, if ever, through sober negotiations, not bombardment.

For decades, the European Union and earlier US administrations operated under a pragmatic consensus: because Iran’s nuclear program is an indigenous, know-how reality rather than a simple logistical hurdle, it cannot be bombed out of existence. They understood that while facilities can be targeted, native scientific knowledge remains intact. Consequently, through all the ups and downs of negotiations, they stuck to the gruelling path of structured diplomacy as the only viable mechanism to manage the crisis. Donald Trump, however, entered the scene determined to shatter this consensus. Yet his approach revealed a distinct pattern: roaring about completely destroying the nuclear program and demanding unconditional surrender, only to call for a deal the moment those threats hit a solid wall. In the end, facing the precipice of an unmanageable regional war, he was forced back toward the exact realization his predecessors had long accepted—that constraints can only be secured through negotiation, not bombardment. When the memorandum of understanding is signed, Trump said already signed, it will be a witness to the simple fact: the US-Israeli War on Iran after spanning 100+ days, including the lull days, come full circle returning to Feb 27 the day before the attacks were launched.

READ: ‘Without me there is no Israel’ says Trump warning Tel-Aviv to stop flattening homes

Behind the bombastic “Maximum Pressure” campaign laid a deeper, shared ambition harboured by Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: the total collapse of the Islamic Republic. In the initial stages of the war, the strategy was based on the wrong assumption pivoted heavily on systemic decapitation, resulting in the elimination of virtually the entire top tier of Iranian leadership. Yet, this maximalist assault exposed a profound miscalculation.

Tehran absorbed these catastrophic losses seamlessly, instantly replacing its fallen commanders and officials, including the Supreme Leader, as if the state apparatus had spent the last two decades meticulously preparing for precisely this type of existential threat.

Realizing that structural decapitation had failed to trigger an internal collapse, both leaders pivoted to overt semantic engineering, using platforms like Truth Social and televised broadcasts to appeal directly to the Iranian population with promises that “help is on its the way” to overthrow their government. When the military campaign ultimately stalled and Washington bypassed Tel Aviv to sign a preliminary peace framework, Netanyahu was forced into immediate damage control. In a televised press conference yesterday, he defensively claimed that his central goals had been achieved and that the joint military adventure had single-handedly “saved Israel from nuclear annihilation”—vocalizing the exact same, unverified narrative that brute force, rather than the diplomacy he sought to destroy, is what prevents a nuclear armed Iran. 

Iran discovered that leveraging the Strait of Hormuz was a far cheaper option to defend itself and deter Trump than showering the US military facilities in the region, an option it had already used effectively.

Instead of sending barrages of domestically produced drones and missiles towards its immediate neighbours and Israel, Tehran simply said the Strait of Hormuz is closed and anyone who wants to pass should talk to them.

While no one could confirm that Iran had actually laid mines in the waterway, everybody took the Iranian announcement seriously; shipping lines either obeyed or stayed stranded.

This maneuver quickly exposed deep cracks among Western partners. Instead of presenting a unified front, Trump found himself complaining about a bitter lack of support from his traditional allies, even blasting them publicly as “cowards” for refusing to back his maritime coalition to force open Hormuz and strengthen the Iranian ports blocked. The UK and France flatly excused themselves from the naval operation, with European leaders noting sharply that they had never been consulted before the war was launched and had actively warned against it. Even as the closure of the Strait triggered a severe global energy crisis, London and Paris stood firm in their refusal to be dragged into an unprovoked conflict. This resistance prompted an increasingly desperate, last-minute rhetorical shift from the White House; Trump openly washed his hands of the strategic waterway, telling his European allies that securing the route was “not for us” and taunting them to “go get your own oil” and “go and take it” themselves.

Trump did, on at least a couple of occasions, admit that Iranians are tough negotiators who rarely lose a negotiation. However, if this war has proved anything, it is that they are just as formidable on the battlefield as they are at the negotiating table.

Beyond possessing the right technology, weapons, and personnel, war is fundamentally a test of decision-making by a resilient leadership fully aware of its own limitations. The widespread expectation was that Iran would capitulate once the first wave of destructive bombs began to fall. The decision to stand firm despite these immense constraints demonstrates that those calling the shots are remarkably resilient and tough—even after top leaders have already gone.

OPINION: Arab states condemned Israel publicly, but quietly moved on from Gaza

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.