Behbud Bash
In the autumn of 2025, the Islamic Republic of Iran stands at a crossroads of unprecedented geopolitical pressure and existential threats in its forty-year history. Donald Trump’s return to the White House is not a temporary political event; it marks the starting point of a new security doctrine called “Project 2025,” which transforms Washington’s paradigm of confrontation with Tehran from “containment” to “structural change.”
Based on intelligence data and strategic analysis, this comprehensive report argues that the current diplomatic and negotiation offers presented by Western capitals are not an opportunity to reduce tensions, but rather a “deadly negotiation trap.” This trap aims to paralyze Tehran’s decision-making mechanism, buy time to complete the “Snapback Mechanism” process at the UN Security Council, and simultaneously erode Iran’s deterrence infrastructure.
Analyses based on the theory of “Offensive Realism” show that the United States has moved beyond its classic (2018 version) maximum pressure policy toward a strategy of “Hybrid Warfare and Smart Pressure.” Unlike its first-term objective of securing “a better deal,” Trump 2.0 (based on Heritage Foundation documents) aims to completely disarm Iran and return it to a pre-nuclear status devoid of strategic depth.
The current pressure triangle consists of three pillars:
- Destruction of nuclear infrastructure (a process initiated by the June 2025 strikes).
- Missile and regional disarmament (under the label of diplomatic preconditions).
- Total economic strangulation (focusing on the oil sales network and the FATF blacklist).
Field data indicate that despite the airstrikes conducted by Israel and the United States against the Natanz and Fordo facilities in June 2025, Iran’s indigenous nuclear knowledge remains intact; however, its “nuclear breakout time” has become uncertain. At the same time, the activation of the Snapback Mechanism by the European trio (E3) in August 2025 to reimpose sanctions before the expiration of the “Sunset Clause” proves the existence of full transatlantic consensus against Tehran.
By examining possible scenarios (tactical surrender, nuclear forward breakout, and war of attrition), this report recommends that Tehran avoid falling into the symbolic negotiation trap, immediately operationalize the North-South Corridor, and redefine its deterrence doctrine to reestablish the “balance of terror.”
- Theoretical Framework: Offensive Realism in the 2025 Security Architecture
1-1) The Illusion of Defensive Security in an Anarchic World
For years, parts of Iran’s elite and diplomatic circles have acted according to the assumptions of “Defensive Realism.” According to this belief, if Iran pursued security rather than hegemony and accepted nuclear transparency, the international system would guarantee its security.
The events of 2025 have disproven this assumption. According to John Mearsheimer and the school of Offensive Realism, in a world without central authority (anarchy), great powers (such as the United States) do not trust the intentions of other states and always assume the worst-case scenario. Their ultimate goal is not balance, but absolute hegemony and the prevention of the rise of any regional rival.
In 2025, the United States demonstrated that “security” depends not on law or agreements, but on “power.” Washington’s withdrawal from the nuclear agreement (JCPOA) and its current efforts to completely eliminate Iran’s power elements prove that it views Iran’s “power potential” (even if not yet actualized) as an existential threat. Therefore, Iran’s survival strategy cannot rely on trust-building; instead, it must focus on “self-help” and the accumulation of offensive power to ensure that the cost of attack exceeds its benefits.
- The Negotiation Trap and the Security Dilemma Mechanism
By increasing its offensive capacity (deploying bombers, missile defense systems, and supporting Israeli strikes), the West is forcing Iran to react. However, Iran’s responses (such as increasing enrichment or activating proxy forces) are labeled as “provocative” and used as justification to intensify pressure.
Within this framework, the “Negotiation Trap” serves three layered functions:
• Paralyzing Decision-Making: By promising an ambiguous agreement and sanctions relief, it creates divisions among Iran’s political elites. While one faction calls for restraint in hope of negotiations, time works in favor of the adversary.
• Constructing Legitimacy for Pressure: Iran’s rejection of negotiations provides justification for global consensus (including Russia and China). Acceptance of negotiations, meanwhile, implies acceptance of preconditions (such as halting nuclear activity) while pressure continues.
• Destruction Under the Shadow of Diplomacy: While diplomats sit at the negotiating table, the adversary’s war machine (assassination and sabotage campaigns) continues physically eliminating Iran’s deterrent actors.
- Trump 1.0 vs Trump 2.0: The Evolution of the Pressure Machine
Trump’s return in 2025 is not a repetition of history; it represents an evolved version of pressure designed with lessons learned from the failures of the first term (2017–2021) and supported ideologically by “Project 2025.”
3-1) Project 2025: Bureaucratic Operation for Total War
The “Mandate for Leadership” document prepared by the Heritage Foundation serves as the roadmap for the second Trump administration. Unlike the first term, when traditional bureaucracy acted as a brake on radical decisions, Project 2025 transformed tens of thousands of federal employees into political figures loyal to the MAGA movement through mechanisms such as “Schedule F.” This implies the elimination of moderate voices and technical experts who could warn about the consequences of war with Iran. Russ Vought and other architects view foreign policy as an extension of the domestic war against leftists in the United States and consider compromise with Iran to be betrayal.
3-2) Comparative Analysis of Strategies
| Strategic Component | Trump 1.0 (Maximum Pressure 2018) | Trump 2.0 (Hybrid Pressure 2025) |
| Ultimate Objective | Better deal / Behavioral change | Structural collapse / Regime change (Maximum Support) |
| Primary Tool | Secondary banking and oil sanctions | Hybrid Warfare (Sanctions + Cyber + Direct Kinetic Attack) |
| Allied Alignment | US isolation (European opposition) | Full transatlantic alignment (E3 activated Snapback) |
| Regional Approach | Containment of proxy forces | Disarmament and physical elimination of proxy networks |
| Nuclear Approach | Zero enrichment | Destruction of knowledge and infrastructure (Scorched-earth strategy) |
| Internal Strategy | Hope for spontaneous uprising | Organized intelligence and financial support for opposition (Maximum Support) |
- Anatomy of the Pressure Triangle: Nuclear, Missile, Regional
4-1) Nuclear File: From Enrichment to Physical Destruction Phase
June 2025 Attacks: Following IAEA reports on Iran’s non-compliance and traces of highly enriched uranium, Israel and the United States conducted large-scale attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. The use of heavy bunker-buster bombs against Fordo demonstrates that the doctrine has shifted from “deterrence” to “destruction.” While serious damage was reported to IR-6 and IR-2m centrifuge infrastructure, nuclear technical knowledge and 14 uranium mines remained intact. However, this situation has increased Iran’s motivation for weaponization.
Snapback Crisis: The most dangerous diplomatic development was the activation of the Snapback Mechanism by the E3 on August 28, 2025. The objective is to prevent the expiration of Resolution 2231 on October 18, 2025. By design, Snapback cannot be vetoed; this means the automatic return of all pre-2015 UN sanctions (including Resolution 1929) and Iran’s reentry under Chapter VII.
4-2) Missile and UAV: Transition from “Range” to “Warhead Capacity”
In the new US policy, the red line is no longer “2,000 km range,” but the technical concept of “nuclear warhead delivery capacity.” This definition includes satellite launch vehicles, which the West views as a cover for ICBM development. Furthermore, despite the delivery of S-400 systems from Russia, the June 2025 attacks demonstrated that the combination of F-35 aircraft and electronic warfare can penetrate these defense layers.
4-3) Cutting Regional Arms: Disarmament as a Precondition
The Trump 2.0 team is no longer satisfied with containment. In plans presented to the Lebanese and Iraqi governments, the disarmament of Hezbollah and the integration of Hashd al-Shaabi into the national army are imposed as preconditions for any economic assistance.
- Economic Warfare: Strategy of Total Strangulation
Ghost Fleet Hunt: The United States has dramatically increased the risk of transporting Iranian oil through extensive sanctions targeting tankers and insurance companies. Exports to China have declined significantly, and approximately 20 million barrels of oil remain unsold at sea.
FATF and Financial Blockade: Iran’s reentry onto the FATF blacklist at the end of 2024 increased trade costs by 10–20 percent and forced partners such as China and Iraq to exercise caution in financial transfers.
Inflation and Social Risk: The inflation rate of 45.3 percent in September 2025 has destroyed the purchasing power of the middle and lower classes. The “Maximum Support” doctrine aims to trigger social explosion by exploiting this anger.
- Scenarios and Strategic Recommendations
• Scenario A (Tactical Surrender – Libya Model): Tehran accepts nuclear restrictions in hopes of sanctions relief. The US obtains enrichment suspension but continues sanctions under other pretexts. Iran remains disarmed.
• Scenario B (Nuclear Deterrence – North Korea Model): Iran withdraws from the NPT and conducts nuclear tests, recognizing Snapback as inevitable. This provides existential deterrence but leads to total isolation.
• Scenario C (War of Attrition – Gray Zone): Attempting to impose costs through asymmetric tools (Strait of Hormuz, cyber operations). However, the West remains superior in conventional warfare, and infrastructure is gradually destroyed.
This report’s analysis reveals that the threat faced by the Islamic Republic of Iran in 2025 is not merely economic or political pressure, but a “total hybrid operation” targeting the state’s strategic structure and regional presence.
The hallmark of the “Trump 2.0” era, Project 2025, aims to completely close traditional diplomatic pathways and force Tehran into either absolute surrender (Libya Model) or a destructive military-economic attrition process.
Based on the analyzed data, the following key conclusions have been reached:
• The Negotiation Table Is a Battlefield: Western negotiation offers are not solutions but delay tactics designed to paralyze Iran’s defensive reflexes until the Snapback Mechanism is completed.
• The Deterrence Doctrine Must Be Updated: The June 2025 attacks demonstrated that existing conventional and air defense systems (including S-400) are insufficient, and that the balance of terror can only be restored by redefining the nuclear and technological threshold.
• Economic and Social Resilience: Since the Maximum Support strategy aims to convert economic pressure into social unrest, the state must transition to a wartime posture not only in security, but also in social justice and economic survival.
Ultimately, October 18, 2025, represents a turning point. By that date, Iran will either lose its leverage in imposed “trap negotiations” or break the encirclement through alternative geopolitical moves such as the North-South Corridor and clarifying its nuclear deterrence capacity.
A unified consensus across all state institutions, ending the separation between “the field and diplomacy,” is the only key to overcoming this existential crisis.
