In a revelation that sheds light on the internal dynamics of US foreign policy toward Iran, US Special Envoy for Iran Abram Witkoff stated that former President Donald Trump has publicly expressed his bewilderment at the Islamic Republic's resistance to yielding to Washington's pressure. According to Witkoff, Trump, during his tenure and in subsequent remarks, has openly wondered why Iran has not 'capitulated' to the 'maximum pressure' campaign implemented by his administration, which included devastating economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation. These statements, reported in the context of a security conference, underscore a fundamental gap in understanding the complex geopolitical reality of Iran and its historical resistance to external coercion.
The context for this observation dates back to the Trump administration's 2018 decision to unilaterally withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the 2015 multilateral nuclear deal. This move was followed by the reimposition and tightening of unprecedented economic sanctions against Tehran, with the stated goal of forcing Iran to negotiate a new deal addressing not only its nuclear program but also its ballistic missile activities and regional influence. The strategy, dubbed 'maximum pressure', aimed to cripple the Iranian economy, primarily by targeting its vital oil exports and isolating the country from the international financial system. The data is telling: Iran's crude exports fell from approximately 2.5 million barrels per day in 2018 to less than 500,000 in 2020, and its GDP contracted significantly, creating a deep internal economic crisis.
Yet, far from capitulating, Iran's response was a policy of 'maximum resistance'. Tehran began a gradual but steady walk-back from its nuclear commitments under the JCPOA, increasing uranium enrichment, stockpiling reserves, and deploying advanced centrifuges. Furthermore, Iran intensified its assertive posture in the region, supporting allied groups and, according to Western accusations, perpetrating or backing attacks on commercial and security interests. 'The expectation that pressure alone would produce total capitulation was a strategic miscalculation,' commented a Middle East analyst who requested anonymity. 'It ignored the deep-seated sense of national sovereignty and the Iranian establishment's capacity to absorb pain and externalize costs.' Witkoff, in his remarks, did not detail the exact context of Trump's question, but its mere formulation reflects a view of international relations based on transaction and submission, which clashes with the complex history and national pride of a state like Iran.
The impact of this perception and the policy it inspired is profound and lasting. The Middle East region has become more unstable, with an increase in security incidents and an arms race. Talks to revive the JCPOA, initiated in 2021, have been plagued by distrust and deadlock, partly because Tehran insists on guarantees that a future US president will not repeat the unilateral withdrawal. The Iranian economy, though battered, did not collapse, and the regime consolidated its internal control. 'Maximum pressure failed to achieve its maximum political objectives,' assessed a recent US Congressional report. 'Instead, it pushed Iran to adopt a more aggressive posture.' Trump's question, therefore, is not merely a rhetorical curiosity; it is a symptom of an approach that underestimated its adversary's resilience and overestimated the deterrent power of unilateral economic coercion.
In conclusion, Envoy Witkoff's statements about Trump's bewilderment at Iran's non-capitulation encapsulate a central failure of the 'maximum pressure' policy. They reveal a disconnect between the expectations of the then-White House and the reality on the ground in Tehran, where factors such as nationalism, the theocratic state structure, and regional alliances created a formidable barrier against submission. The legacy of this policy is a more dangerous nuclear stalemate, a more volatile region, and a much steeper diplomatic path for the current and future administrations. The lesson, according to experts, is clear: complex, entrenched regimes rarely capitulate to external pressure; instead, they adapt, harden, and seek alternative ways to survive and challenge.
