Throughout the history of Middle Eastern wars, one strategic mistake has been repeated time and again: great powers achieve victory on the battlefield, only to give their defeated adversaries an opportunity at the negotiating table to transform military defeat into political triumph. President Donald Trump faces precisely this danger. After eight months of war, the Islamic Republic of Iran, despite suffering devastating military and economic losses, continues to seek political survival through nuclear blackmail, threats to global energy security and the deliberate prolongation of negotiations. Washington must not allow a regime that has paid a heavy price for its reckless adventurism to regain, through a hastily negotiated agreement, the very position it occupied before the war.

The developments of Oct. 20 demonstrate that Tehran has abandoned none of its familiar tactics of confrontation, intimidation, bluffing and extortion. On the one hand, Islamic Republic officials speak of negotiations and ending the war; on the other, they impose imaginary conditions on Washington that, if accepted without credible guarantees, could dismantle much of America's leverage.

Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of the Islamic Republic's Supreme National Security Council — a former terrorist affiliated with the Islamic terrorist group Mansouroun, who even sought to visit the United States in the 2000s but was opposed by the CIA — emphasized during his meeting with Pakistan's army chief that not a single gram of Iran's enriched uranium would leave the country.

Meanwhile, Abbas Araghchi — a former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps member acting as foreign minister — has made reopening the Strait of Hormuz conditional upon acceptance of Tehran's proposed plan. Far from demonstrating a genuine willingness to compromise, these positions reveal the regime's determination to preserve its instruments of coercion on the eve of a potential agreement.

The most significant issue, however, lies in the political calculations of the Islamic Republic's rulers. Tehran is deliberately dragging out negotiations to weaken Trump's political standing ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections — in other words, to exert psychological pressure on the American president.

This is no longer merely a dispute over centrifuges or economic sanctions. The Islamic Republic is attempting to weaponize the exhaustion of war, the anxieties of American voters and rising energy costs as instruments of political pressure against the president of the United States. Such calculated deception must be understood in Washington as part of Tehran's asymmetric warfare strategy, not dismissed as an ordinary diplomatic tactic.

The Strait of Hormuz stands at the center of this calculation. The terrorist organization known as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has claimed — without presenting any evidence — that Iranian naval mines prevented three oil tankers from passing through the waterway. Nevertheless, the widespread disruption of regional shipping is an undeniable reality.

The Islamic Republic understands perfectly well that it does not need to win a conventional naval battle to inflict economic pain on the United States. It need only increase the risks facing oil tankers, drive up insurance and transportation costs, and keep global energy markets trapped in uncertainty. Under this strategy, commercial tankers become hostages to Tehran's security calculations, while American consumers pay the price of the Iranian regime's policies at the gas pump.

This is the very essence of the rogue Islamic Republic's asymmetric warfare: a form of conflict in which military weakness is compensated for through economic, propaganda, intelligence and proxy instruments. Tehran possesses limited capabilities in a direct confrontation with American military power, but it can exploit maritime routes, militia networks, cyberattacks and influence operations to multiply the costs of the crisis.

IRAN SETS RED LINES FOR US TALKS: LIFT SANCTIONS, END THREATS — 'NOT A GRAM' OF URANIUM LEAVES Reports of efforts by Iran and Russia to intensify unrest in France, together with the rearrests of two suspects in Britain on suspicion of intelligence cooperation with Iran, serve as further reminders that Western security concerns extend far beyond the Persian Gulf. Ignoring this pattern would undoubtedly be a dangerous mistake. The Islamic Republic came to power through terrorism, sustained its rule through terrorism, destruction and manufactured crises, and its eventual collapse may likewise be possible through war.

The nuclear file exposes another danger. Tehran's insistence on retaining its enriched uranium, while simultaneously demanding relief from economic and military pressure, raises a fundamental question: If the Iranian regime genuinely intends to address international concerns, why does it refuse to demonstrate flexibility over one of the most sensitive components of its nuclear program?

Uranium enrichment does not, by itself, prove a decision to manufacture nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, enriched uranium stockpiles, centrifuge capacity and the possibility of independent monitoring remain decisive factors in assessing the risk of a nuclear breakout. An agreement that postpones these questions while granting Tehran immediate and irreversible concessions could merely defer the crisis to an even more dangerous stage rather than resolve it. The principal global threat remains Islamic terrorism and Iran's transnational terrorist network.

Trump must recognize the distinction between ending military operations and eliminating a security threat. The destruction of military equipment, damage to facilities and degradation of the Revolutionary Guards' operational capabilities — however extensive — do not automatically mean the elimination of the rogue mafia regime's command structure, political will, or capacity for reconstruction.

Over the decades, the Islamic Republic has demonstrated its ability to exploit periods of reduced pressure to rebuild its military and security structures and its terrorist networks. Accordingly, America's measure of success must not be limited to the cessation of missile launches or the temporary reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Genuine success will come only when the regime's ability to repeat those same threats has been curtailed.

Another mistake must also be avoided: equating Iran with the Islamic Republic. The Iranian nation and the ruling establishment in Tehran are two fundamentally different realities. For years, the Iranian people have paid the price of domestic repression, systemic corruption, international isolation, and the regime's regional adventurism. No sustainable American strategy should portray the survival of the Islamic Republic as synonymous with stability in Iran.

On the contrary, a policy that merely guarantees the regime's security in exchange for temporary concessions could deprive Iranian society of the opportunity to shape a different future. While safeguarding its own national security interests, Washington must defend the Iranian people's right to determine their country's political future, without bargaining away their destiny behind the closed doors of a security agreement. The Iranian people want regime change.

To prevent such an outcome, the Trump administration needs a clear strategic framework and a decisive course of action. Any agreement must include explicit nuclear commitments, enforceable independent monitoring, credible verification mechanisms, guarantees for maritime security and clearly defined consequences for violations. Sanctions relief and the release of financial resources must not be granted in advance without securing genuine concessions. Threats against commercial vessels must never become an instrument through which Tehran acquires political control over one of the world's most vital waterways. Diplomacy has value when it reduces threats.