During a TV interview in 1980, a wealthy young American was asked about the possibility of going to Iran, if given the chance, to save the American hostages. He clearly stated, "I would have done it... definitely." Despite the journalist's insistence on the difficulty of the situation, the young man stood by his position.

The response of the then-business tycoon, Donald Trump, seemed obvious and expected. No one would say they wouldn't go on a military mission to rescue their fellow citizens, as they would be accused of cowardice and betrayal. However, it was palpable how the hostage crisis influenced his thinking, even leading him to criticize President Jimmy Carter's administration for its passive handling of the issue.

These interviews show that Trump's discontent with Iran is very old. Furthermore, Trump seemed to be aware in his youth of one of Iran's weaknesses: Kharg Island, a transit point for about 90 percent of Iran's oil to the outside world.

Calculated risk

Nevertheless, Iran's calculated risk was not devoid of reasonable calculations. On the one hand, Trump himself allowed the Iranian gamble by merely reducing his threats and agreeing to negotiate with them.

As Annahar mentioned a few days ago, delaying or suspending the war primarily benefits Iran. This retreat gave Tehran room for escalation, showing that they didn’t enter negotiations under pressure. Trump understands the other party's desire to save face, as was evident after the bombing of Iran's nuclear program last June.

On the other hand, Tehran knows that most regional powers do not want war in the region and are pressuring the American administration to move toward negotiation. Therefore, Iran’s calculations have succeeded… so far.

Reading Trump’s “weakness”… Does it hold?

Iran won the latest round of escalation. Yet, it now stands at a crossroads. It can either become bolder, using this success to drain the negotiations of their substance and make them a tool to frustrate Trump until he shifts his focus to another issue, or it can offer concessions on at least some points. In the latter case, it is expected that the nuclear file, support for proxies, and reducing repression would be on the table—unlike the missile arsenal.

Iran's behavioral history shows that Tehran often acts ideologically rather than pragmatically. Some might point to Tehran's pragmatism in signing the nuclear deal in 2015, but that example is not entirely fitting. Iran agreed to "postpone" its nuclear program in exchange for abundant liquidity, investment promises, recognition of legitimacy, and acknowledgment of regional expansion. Obama's offer was ideal for the Iranians. What is on the table today is a veiled surrender, arising from a massive power imbalance against Tehran. However, ideological mobilization may prevent the regime from fully grasping this reality.