Who died, Sabtalink, Humayra Pamuk?

WASHINGTON, May 16 (Reuters) - In his first year back in office, U.S. President Donald Trump's unbridled negotiating style has succeeded in extracting concessions from countries on issues ranging from tariffs to armed conflicts.

But with Iran, this same kind of coercive diplomacy, characterized by public threats, insults, and ultimatums, appears to have reached a dead end and may even undermine efforts to end a war that has ravaged the global economy.

With the two sides deadlocked, Trump is increasingly frustrated with the 11-week-long crisis but has shown no inclination to soften his blunt diplomatic approach toward Iran’s leaders.

This suggests that a quick negotiated settlement is unlikely, fueling fears that the current standoff – and the resulting biggest-ever shock to global energy supplies – could continue indefinitely with repeated rounds of maximum pressure policy.

Analysts say that among the main obstacles is the mindset of Iran’s rulers, including their need to save face with their citizens at home, even as so many senior leaders have been killed by US-Israeli strikes and the Islamic Republic’s military capabilities have been severely weakened.

Although Iran maintains essentially stranglehold on the vital Strait of Hormuz, giving it considerable leverage, Trump insists on pursuing a diplomatic approach characterized by extreme demands, shifting positions, conflicting signals, and a strident tone.

Analysts say that what is most important is Trump's insistence on emerging from the conflict by portraying it as an absolute victory for the United States – even if that contradicts the reality on the ground – while the Iranians are expected to accept total defeat, which is unlikely.

Rob Malley, a former negotiator with Iran in the administrations of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, believes that "this inevitably hinders reaching a reasonable agreement, because no government, not just Iran, can afford to be seen as having capitulated."

The current impasse with Iran coincides with domestic pressures facing Trump due to rising gasoline prices in the United States and his declining approval ratings after launching an unpopular war ahead of the November midterm elections. His Republican Party is struggling to maintain its majority in Congress.

White House spokeswoman Olivia Wells defended Trump's diplomatic approach based on what she described as his "proven track record of making good deals," and insisted that the Iranians were increasingly "begging" for an agreement.

"President Trump is a skilled negotiator who always sets the right tone," she said.

* Threat of annihilation

Trump’s most alarming words came last month when he threatened in a social media post to wipe out Iranian civilization unless Tehran reached an agreement – a message that administration officials told the Wall Street Journal was spontaneous and not vetted within the framework of national security strategy.

Trump eventually backed down and agreed to a truce. But since his Easter Day threat, using vulgar language, to destroy bridges and the power grid in Iran, he has repeated this warning, including to reporters aboard Air Force One on his return from China on Friday.

Earlier this month, Trump told reporters that they would know the current ceasefire had collapsed if they saw "a big light coming out of Iran." Some interpreted his words as a threat to deploy nuclear weapons, something he has insisted he would never do.

Trump directed some of his harshest words at Iran's leaders, calling them "crazy bastards," "morons," and "thugs," and Tehran responded with a widespread campaign to ridicule him through satirical edited images and social media posts.

He persists in his insistence that Iran has been completely crushed despite evidence to the contrary, and says that they are "begging" for a deal – which the Iranians are quick to deny – while he oscillates between demanding "unconditional surrender" and calling for a negotiated settlement.

However, the Iranians say that simply surviving the military attack represents a victory for them, and demonstrates their ability to inflict heavy economic losses.

Two sources familiar with the matter said there are no efforts underway within the White House to persuade Trump to exercise more restraint in his messaging on Iran. The sources requested anonymity to discuss internal discussions.

While polls show that supporters of his "Make America Great Again" movement mostly back him, some prominent figures who supported him in the past have expressed their opposition to the war and criticized his extreme threats.

Social media after midnight

Some of Trump’s harshest words, which he often posts on his Truth Social platform after midnight, have come at crucial moments such as last month when he suddenly announced a blockade of Iranian ports, prompting Iran to take retaliatory measures that threatened to unravel the already fragile truce.

Last Monday, Trump described the latest peace proposal from Iranian officials as "garbage".

“The lack of strategic patience and the inconsistency of the president’s rhetoric undermine any message he wants to convey,” said Dennis Ross, a former Middle East adviser in both Democratic and Republican administrations.

During Trump’s visit to Beijing, he mostly refrained from launching harsh verbal attacks on Iran as he was preoccupied with important relations with China, Tehran’s ally and one of the main buyers of Iranian oil.

But some analysts have suggested that Trump, who often speaks publicly and gives impromptu telephone interviews to journalists, would be better off toning down his rhetoric altogether if he is serious about finding a way out of the conflict.

"He (Trump) talks too much," Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Khatibzadeh told reporters last month during a visit to Türkiye.

Trump, a former New York real estate developer who describes himself as a dealmaker, has always insisted that his unpredictability is a negotiating tactic aimed at confusing his opponents.

This approach helped him secure concessions in some instances when seeking tariff agreements with trading partners, though he often accepted less than his initial demands. In some disputes, such as the swift US military raid against Venezuela that led to the arrest of its president and last year's talks that resulted in a ceasefire in the Gaza war, pressure tactics also proved effective.

Analysts say Trump wants to appear tough on the Iranians to intimidate them and force them to compromise on their nuclear program and other issues. He campaigned on a promise to keep the United States out of foreign wars.

But former U.S. officials who negotiated with Iran ruled out the success of this approach, especially given the deep-rooted religious and military institutions in Iran and the country's pride in its long history.

Analysts say Trump’s threats may have emboldened Iran’s new rulers, who are more hardline than their predecessors killed in the strikes and whose confidence in him had already diminished after the two US attacks last year while the two sides were negotiating.

"There was a misconception that if you put enough pressure on Iran, it would capitulate, but that's not how it works with Iran," said Nate Swanson, a former State Department official who was on the negotiating team with Iran until July.

Barbara Leaf, the former Middle East envoy under former President Joe Biden, said that in addition to the president's rhetoric, his campaign against Iran was hampered by "a reckless assumption that Iran is a Venezuela-like problem that needs solving and a general misunderstanding of the regime's inherent resilience."

Some experts believe that Trump's approach, which he said was primarily aimed at ensuring that Iran could not acquire a nuclear weapon, may backfire.

Analysts say that a US military campaign coupled with Trump's coercive diplomacy may actually push Iran further toward developing a nuclear bomb, rather than the other way around, so that it can defend itself like a nuclear-armed North Korea. Iran has always insisted on its right to enrich uranium, but maintains that this is solely for peaceful purposes.

Adding to the tension is the fact that Trump and the Iranians appear to be working at different paces. The impulsive president often wants a quick agreement so he can move forward, while Iranian delegations have a history of prolonging negotiations.

Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, an academic in the UAE, said the president could tone down his rhetoric, but Iran's intransigence is the biggest reason for the current predicament, more so than "Trump's threats and bombastic comments."

Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Government in Washington, said that leaders in Tehran may interpret Trump's erratic approach as a sign of desperation and believe they can wait until his term ends.

He added, "In some ways, Trump is playing perfectly well for them."