Key Points and Summary: The recent US “Operation Midnight Hammer” strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities should be understood not as an abandonment of diplomacy, but as a calculated act of “coercive diplomacy.”
-After Iran rejected direct talks and stalled negotiations, President Trump used limited, precision force to break the diplomatic impasse and reset the terms of engagement.
-This strategy, rooted in the idea that diplomacy without credible force is ineffective, imposed a direct cost on Tehran for its intransigence while leaving the door open for future talks.
Iran’s subsequent, face-saving missile strike on a largely empty base in Qatar may be the signal that it understands the new dynamic and is ready to de-escalate.
How Trump Used an Airstrike as a Negotiating Tactic with Iran
In response to Iran’s intransigence over its nuclear enrichment program and refusal to engage directly in talks, President Trump has resorted to a traditional foreign policy tool: coercive diplomacy. Far from abandoning negotiations, his administration is reframing them, using limited, targeted strikes to reset the terms of engagement and impose consequences for stonewalling.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi declared that U.S. airstrikes on his country were a “betrayal of diplomacy,” making future negotiations impossible. But from President Trump’s point of view, the bombing was all part of the process. The airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, followed by an open invitation to resume dialogue, signal a deliberate and calibrated use of force aimed at breaking the diplomatic deadlock.
Last week, negotiations with Iran over the future of their nuclear program were at an impasse. Tehran had dug in on the issue of uranium enrichment, refusing to give up the ability to produce highly enriched uranium while still denying that they were pursuing weaponization.
Matters came to a head after President Trump called for “unconditional surrender” and gave Iran a final opportunity for talks in Geneva, before finalizing a decision on the use of force. Rather than seizing the opportunity to reframe the dialogue, Araghchi told European diplomats that Iran would not negotiate directly with the U.S., would not budge on enrichment or Iran’s missile program, and would only accept parameters based on the 2015 JCPOA agreement which President Trump withdrew from in 2018.
So, having warned Iran that strikes were coming, President Trump reframed the dialogue by taking decisive action against Iran’s enrichment facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The limited precision strikes successfully eliminated, for the time being, Iran’s means to continue to progress in the development of a nuclear weapon. The White House then invited the Iranians to continue discussions, which they promptly refused.
Monday’s anemic and pre-announced missile attack on the mostly empty Al Udeid U.S. air base in Qatar may be Iran’s face-saving retaliatory gesture, which opens the way for future talks.
Operation Midnight Hammer was an example of compellence, or coercive diplomacy. This framework differs from other uses of force in that it is limited, takes place in the context of a diplomatic impasse or crisis, is focused directly on addressing the issue at hand, is signaled beforehand, and offers a clear path for de-escalation. It is part of a negotiation strategy existing somewhere between war and diplomacy, with elements of both.
What History Tells Us
Though many policymakers believe that the use of force and negotiations are mutually exclusive, in fact the two are closely connected. Prussian King Frederick the Great said, “diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments.” Federick was a deft practitioner of classic European realpolitik, both as a military commander and diplomatic strategist, and understood how sometimes a diplomatic impasse has to be dislodged through the application of force. Detaching these two elements of power means negotiations without enforcement, or might without an objective.
Tehran was understandably upset by the move, which side-stepped their usually successful negotiating strategies. “They use diplomacy to hide behind and obfuscate and think they can buy themselves time,” Secretary of State Marc Rubio explained. “They think they’re cute, they’re not cute, and they’re not going to get away with this stuff, not under President Trump.”
So if negotiations do continue, what is left to talk about? A great deal, as it turns out. For example, Iran has not yet accounted for its stockpile of enriched uranium. It could be buried deep in the rubble of Fordow, though the regime claims it had been dispersed.
The IAEA is asking questions that Iran refuses to answer. And recall that when the UN monitoring agency found Iran in breach of non-proliferation obligations earlier this month, Tehran responded by denouncing the report and saying they would double-down on their illicit enrichment activities.
Another issue is negotiating how to dismantle what remains of Iran’s nuclear program. After all, the regime can rebuild from the damage inflicted by the U.S. airstrikes, which they claim was not substantial anyway.
Negotiators need to construct a durable legal mechanism to prevent Iran from pursuing future enrichment and providing Tehran with whatever low-enriched uranium it may need for the peaceful purposes they claim to be interested in.
Such a deal would also require a robust verification mechanism in which UN or other inspectors would be given full access to suspected Iranian nuclear sites to ensure compliance. In addition, the agreement should contain means for enforcement if verification is thwarted or violations are discovered.
Too often, arms control agreements focus entirely on complex verification protocols without addressing the question of enforcement should a party be found in breach. It would be best to have this agreed to up front.
Rather than seeing diplomacy and force as opposites, the Trump administration has adopted a strategy that integrates them. The precision strikes carried out in Operation Midnight Hammer were not an abandonment of negotiations, but a necessary corrective to a stagnant and asymmetrical process.
By imposing costs for intransigence while leaving the door open to meaningful dialogue, the United States has demonstrated that it will no longer be a passive participant in negotiations that yield little and delay much.
Iran vs. America and Israel: What Happens Now?
Those who keep saying the U.S. needs to “get Iran back to the table” should remember that the negotiating table is traditionally where Iran wins. As Tehran recalibrates its strategy in light of this shift, it must now contend with a negotiating partner that recognizes the utility of pressure, and the limits of patience.
About the Author:
James S. Robbins is Senior Fellow in National Security Affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council and Dean of Academics at the Institute of World Politics graduate school in Washington, DC.
Aircraft Carrier Drama
The Navy’s Ford-Class Aircraft Carrier Is Obsolete
Pingback: GBU-57: The US Used a 15-Ton Bomb to 'Obliterate' Iran's Nuclear Program - National Security Journal
pagar
June 23, 2025 at 6:24 pm
Bombing iran is the culmination of rising testosterone levels in trump’s veins, nothing to do with negotiation strategies.
In joe biden’s body, cancerous cells are on the rampage, but in trump’s body, caveman’s instincts are on the rampage.
Trump’s testosterone levels are fast rising, due to fallout over numerous MAGA failures, from trade tariffs, to economic malaise, to exit of elon musk, to failures in ukraine, gaza and yemen and now in iran.
Iran has been able to lob waeheads at Israel, using drones, cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles and heavyweight missiles like the kheibar missile which is a copy of hwasong-10 missile.
That has enraged trump, who arlier said israeli strikes at iran were totally successful.
But iran struck back and the strikes by Israel only cause extensive damage but left places like fordow intact.
Topol
June 23, 2025 at 8:12 pm
Iran has pooh-poohed trump’s brash claim about an agreed ceasefire between Israel and tehran.
Tehran must seek revenge for the untold destruction and carnage caused by netanyahu against both iran and gaza.
Netanyahu cannot be let off scot-free. A tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye.
Tehran must build a missile capable of hitting Taipei with a nuke warheads purchase from abroad.
Hitting Taipei with a nuke will at once bring about arrival of judgement day.
Netanyahu and trump and their cronies know What exactly it is to them.
Commentar
June 24, 2025 at 2:58 am
Trump’s bombings were or are the result of hubris, not due to mega dreams about negotiations.
But iran hurled a large big massive spanner at that trump oversized over-inflated ego.
The IRG were able to launch retaliatory strikes that resulted in serious damage as well as causing IDF’s armaments reserve to dwindle to alarmingly low levels.
Heh, heh, heh.
Lesson from all that.
Countries with a large bullseye on their forehead need to have twin armed forces. Two separate defense forces.
Never forget after just one week of all-out fightin’, ammo starts to run out.
Doyle-2
June 24, 2025 at 7:26 am
The world, whole wide world, needs to know now that the ‘leader of the free world’ is always or constantly obsessed with obliterating, targeting, russia, china, iran, gaza, cuba and other cheapskate places.
That’s not a comforting thing to know, especially the ‘leader of the free world’ is today headed by a president who’s also equally obsessed with trade tariffs and defense spending and budget deficits.
It’s like boarding a train that’s rolling down a mountain side that leads straight to a vertical cliff.
So, don’t board that train.
For those not relishing the idea of boarding that train, they need to travel using super duper high-tech stuff like spaceplanes, spacegliders and suborbital craft.