Coercion Without Ownership: The Real Trump Playbook on Iran

From grandiose promises of crushing the Iranian regime to last‑minute deals with Tehran over prisoner exchanges, the policy of former President Donald Trump toward Iran often appeared contradictory, transactional, and ultimately unconsolidated. What consistent logic underlay this approach? The answer lies in a framework that scholars and strategists might call “coercion without ownership” — an effort to force desired outcomes from Tehran without building or sustaining the political, diplomatic, and strategic consensus necessary to make those outcomes durable.

The Illusion of Maximum Pressure

When Trump entered the White House in 2017, he declared the Iran nuclear deal — formally the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — “the worst deal ever signed.” The Iran deal, negotiated under President Obama with European allies, Russia, and China, placed verifiable limits on Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from that deal in 2018, and to impose what his administration called “maximum pressure” sanctions, was marketed as a strategy to bring Iran to its knees.

In reality, maximum pressure was more symbolic than structural. The U.S. re‑imposed financial sanctions, targeted energy exports, and sought to cut Iran’s oil revenue to zero. American officials claimed this would suffocate Tehran’s ability to fund its regional proxies and force new negotiations on nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and human rights.

But sanctions alone are a blunt instrument. They can limit economic growth, create hardship for everyday people, and constrain government budgets — but they don’t automatically change state behavior. Nor can they, by themselves, impose a new political order.

Coercion Without Ownership Defined

To understand Trump’s approach, we need a distinction between pressure and ownership:

Pressure: Tools like sanctions, military posturing, and economic isolation designed to make the adversary’s choices costly.

Ownership: The political and diplomatic groundwork that makes a strategy sustainable — alliances, credible incentives, fallback plans, and buy‑in from domestic and international partners.

Trump’s Iran policy excelled at pressure. It lacked ownership. In other words: The administration was brilliant at forcing pain, terrible at shaping outcomes.

Coercion without ownership boils down to three core weaknesses:

Lack of enduring alliances

Absence of credible incentives

An off‑again, on‑again transactional mindset

1. Alliance Erosion: Playing Chess Alone

Sanctions work best when they are multilateral. The 2015 nuclear deal included unified enforcement by European powers, the United Nations, and U.S. agencies. That shared structure made the deal hard for Iran to exploit.

Trump’s withdrawal denied European allies a vote on the policy. Germany, France, and the U.K. repeatedly sought mechanisms to keep trade flowing to Iran despite sanctions. They even proposed special purpose vehicles to facilitate limited commerce. But Washington rejected these efforts, and cooperation frayed.

When your strategy depends on isolating a nation, fracturing the alliance that once upheld that isolation is counterproductive. Coercion without ownership failed to generate the unified front that might have made sanctions truly irresistible.

2. Incentives Without Credibility

Pressure without credible carrots leads only to bitterness, not bargains. Though Trump occasionally hinted at interest in negotiations, the broader approach suggested that the U.S. wanted total capitulation from Tehran — an unrealistic goal for any government that still commands an army, a foreign policy, and regional influence.

In policy‑maker parlance, coercion must be paired with credible inducements. Meaning: the adversary must believe that compliance will yield real benefits. By walking away from the JCPOA, decertifying the agreement, and then offering a menu of demands Tehran could not accept without self‑inflicted political damage, the U.S. traded carrots for ultimatums. Ultimatums rarely engender cooperation.

When Iranian leaders responded by escalating their nuclear program and avoiding negotiations, Washington’s answer was still more pressure — sanctions on banks, oil companies, and Revolutionary Guard units. The cycle reinforced Iran’s belief that concessions would not lead to relief.

3. Transactionalism in a Complex Environment

Trump’s instinct for deals led to headline‑grabbing agreements — especially the regional normalization deals between Israel and several Arab states — but it did not translate into a coherent Iran strategy. Instead, the U.S. bounced between punitive actions and selective, tactical negotiations such as prisoner exchanges.

This transactional approach assumes that two parties can always find a bottom line. But geopolitics is less like a market negotiation and more like a game of chess with many stakeholders, historical wounds, and asymmetric power perceptions. Tehran does not see the U.S. as just another trading partner — it sees America as a rival whose ambitions and alliances threaten its regional interests.

Without acknowledging that reality, Trump’s offers were often seen as either untenable or insincere. Tehran responded not from weakness, but from skepticism.

Real‑World Outcomes and Costs

What did coercion without ownership accomplish?

Iran’s nuclear program expanded, with Tehran enriching uranium at higher levels than under the JCPOA.

Regional tensions spiked, including attacks on shipping in the Gulf, strikes on Saudi energy infrastructure, and assaults on U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria.

Diplomatic channels frayed, making future negotiations more difficult.

Critics argue that America’s retreat from the multilateral framework weakened its strategic position. Supporters claim pressure exposed Iran’s aggressive behavior and rallied partners like Saudi Arabia and Israel to counter Tehran’s influence.

Either way, the absence of ownership meant that no durable solution was crafted. Pressure without a roadmap led to tactical skirmishes, not strategic victories.

The Playbook Reimagined: From Pressure to Partnership

If the Trump era teaches any lesson about Iran policy, it’s that coercion must be embedded in a broader architecture of alliances, incentives, and credible negotiations. A reimagined playbook would include:

Reengaging with allies to design a unified sanctions strategy that includes clear, shared goals.

Offering phased and verifiable incentives that allow Iran to preserve dignity while reducing nuclear risks.

Establishing sustained communication channels — not only through formal diplomacy but back‑channel negotiations that can de‑escalate conflicts.

Encouraging domestic voices in Iran who favor economic engagement and gradual reintegration into the global economy.

This approach does not mean appeasement. It means recognizing that a complex adversary — with its own political imperatives — will not respond solely to pain. It must see a credible horizon of benefit.

Conclusion: The True Cost of Incoherent Strategy

“Coercion without ownership” might be the most accurate description of the Trump administration’s Iran playbook. It imposed pressure but neglected the political and diplomatic scaffolding needed to shape a sustainable outcome.

Policy is not a game of pure leverage. It’s a balance of power and persuasion. Coercion can bend behavior, but ownership — the hard work of coalition‑building, credible incentives, and long‑term vision — is what bends history.

Until strategies toward Iran embrace both pressure and ownership, America will continue to cycle through crises rather than secure peace.