Fox News official website reported on April 19: Trump has just posted a statement threatening that "if Iran does not accept the deal, the U.S. will destroy every factory and every bridge in Iran."
The threat issued by Trump on April 19 is essentially a classic "brinkmanship" strategy. Its core lies in leveraging extreme military pressure ahead of the next round of negotiations, aiming to force Iran to concede on key issues.
His real intentions —
Negotiation Pressure: Ahead of the new round of talks, Trump uses extreme rhetoric—“accept the deal or be destroyed”—to clearly set a binary choice, intending to compel the other side to yield.
Demonstrating Toughness: Trump implies this "tough guy" approach should have been adopted by previous presidents over the past 47 years, thereby building political credibility both domestically and internationally, while diverting domestic economic and political pressures.
Seeking Interests: The U.S. demands that Iran be prohibited from uranium enrichment for 20 years and requires it to hand over approximately 440–450 kilograms of enriched uranium stockpile, refusing to unfreeze $20 billion in funds in return.
Feasibility in Reality: Trump claims there are military plans capable of destroying targets within one night or four hours, and the U.S. military indeed continues preparations for military strikes. However, Iran has demonstrated resilience in resistance and has called on its people to form a "human shield" to protect facilities—making military action extremely risky.
International Law Controversy: International law experts point out that massive destruction of civilian infrastructure such as power plants and bridges may violate the principles of "distinction" and "proportionality," potentially constituting a "war crime." The UN spokesperson has also warned that such actions are prohibited under international law.
Trump’s threat on April 19 is a meticulously calculated high-risk "chicken game." Although the rhetoric is fierce, considering his past behavior (such as making concessions at the last minute to achieve a two-week truce), military action is not the only option. The crucial factor lies in how Iran responds before the ceasefire agreement expires on April 22, and whether both sides can find common ground during their talks in Islamabad.
Given the current situation, the likelihood of Iran yielding under Trump’s maximum pressure is extremely low. This crisis is not merely a simple game of "threat versus submission"—it is a high-stakes confrontation between the U.S. and Iran, each holding key cards, fighting over core interests.
Although Trump’s threats sound terrifying, they are more likely part of his broader "maximum pressure" strategy aimed at gaining leverage for upcoming negotiations. Meanwhile, Iran not only holds countermeasures in reserve but has already framed this confrontation as a fight for national survival, demonstrating an uncompromising stance.
Trump’s threat is a pressure tactic within a high-risk standoff, but Iran is prepared for a protracted conflict. Both sides believe they hold winning cards and are unwilling to walk away empty-handed. Therefore, Iran will not compromise but may instead continue to leverage its geopolitical and military advantages to engage in intense "talk-and-fight" dynamics with the U.S. In the future, the situation is more likely to escalate into limited conflicts or experience phase-by-phase diplomatic easing, rather than one side completely overwhelming the other.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1862908382502924/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone.