The administration’s approach to Iran has oscillated between maximalist rhetoric and a persistent instinct to cut a deal, and that ambivalence has now caught up with it. A policy that promises decisive strength but consistently leaves room for negotiation sends a confused signal to adversaries and allies alike, and Tehran has read that confusion as an opening rather than a deterrent.

The argument here is not that diplomacy with Iran is inherently wrong. It is that half-measures — threats without follow-through — tend to be the least effective posture available, more likely to invite testing than compliance.

The price being paid now — in energy markets, in regional stability, in the credibility of American red lines — was foreseeable, and was foreseen by a range of foreign policy voices across the ideological spectrum. This is an opinion piece and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily Bear News 365’s editorial position.