"The Language Of Leverage"

The pundits see chaos. I see a negotiating strategy built on leverage, unpredictability, and forcing Iran to abandon decades of calculated gamesmanship with America.

Here we go again.

For the last forty-eight hours, I’ve watched the usual parade of television generals, former diplomats, political strategists, and self-appointed Trump whisperers confidently explain what President Trump is thinking. Every network has a panel. Every panel has an expert. And almost every one of them is making the same mistake.

They’re analyzing President Trump as though he’s a conventional politician.

He’s not.

I spent years watching him make decisions long before the cameras arrived and long after they left. I saw how he reacted when someone challenged him, when negotiations stalled, when he believed an opponent mistook restraint for weakness. There was always a pattern. It wasn’t random. It wasn’t emotional chaos. It was calculated pressure designed to force the other side to question every assumption they thought they could safely make.

That’s why none of what happened surprised me.

When Trump declared the ceasefire effectively finished and publicly condemned Iran’s leadership, most commentators treated it as another headline designed to dominate the news cycle. Then came the strikes. Roughly ninety Iranian military targets were hit. Air defenses. Drone infrastructure. Naval assets. Overnight, the conversation shifted from diplomatic theory to military reality.

Suddenly, everyone declared negotiations dead.

I see something different.

For nearly half a century, Iran has relied on the same strategy. Push just far enough to provoke a response. Pull back enough to avoid full-scale war. Create instability. Test American resolve. Wait for Washington to blink. Repeat the process when conditions become favorable again.

It has been an extraordinarily successful formula because, more often than not, every administration eventually returned to the negotiating table hoping the next agreement would produce a different outcome.

Trump has never believed in rewarding bad behavior simply because the alternative is uncomfortable.

Whether you agree with his approach or not, you have to understand the philosophy behind it.

He has always believed that consequences change behavior faster than conversations.

That mindset didn’t begin in politics. It defined the way he negotiated in business for decades. Every deal started with leverage. Everything else came later. If he believed the other side thought they controlled the negotiation, his first objective wasn’t compromise. It was changing the balance of power.

That’s exactly what these strikes accomplished.

The foreign policy establishment tends to interpret unpredictability as recklessness. Having watched Trump operate up close, I learned something very different. Uncertainty is one of his favorite negotiating tools.

If your opponent can predict your next move, they’ve already started building a strategy around it.

If they can’t...

Now they’re reacting instead of planning.

That’s leverage.

People often confuse Trump’s rhetoric with impulsiveness. They hear the language and assume there’s no larger objective. In reality, the rhetoric is often part of the negotiation itself. He raises the temperature. He creates uncertainty. He forces everyone else to respond to his timeline instead of their own.

It’s uncomfortable to watch.

It’s even more uncomfortable to negotiate against.

Look at what happened after the strikes.

One moment he’s questioning whether Iran deserves any agreement at all. The next, he’s suggesting they still want a deal.

Some observers call that contradictory.

It isn’t.

It’s pressure.

He’s reminding Tehran that military action and diplomacy are not mutually exclusive. One creates the conditions for the other. The message is simple: if you want negotiations, you’ll come to them from a much different position than you expected twenty-four hours earlier.

That’s a negotiating tactic I’ve seen before.

Washington, meanwhile, is already doing what Washington always does. Endless debates over escalation. Endless predictions of catastrophe. Endless arguments over whether Trump’s actions are too aggressive, too unconventional, or too dangerous.

Those discussions have value.

But they often miss the larger point.

America’s adversaries aren’t listening to cable news panels.

They’re studying the actions.

They’re measuring resolve.

They’re recalculating risk.

Whether friend or foe, governments adjust quickly when they realize the old playbook may no longer apply.

That’s what matters.

The coming days will determine whether Iran escalates further, returns to negotiations, or attempts to split the difference. No one knows for certain. Anyone telling you they do is selling certainty they simply don’t possess.

But here’s what I do know.

Donald Trump has never entered a negotiation hoping the other side would do the right thing.

He enters believing the other side should conclude they have no better option.

That’s an important distinction.

People can argue all day about whether his methods are too disruptive, too confrontational, or too risky. That’s a legitimate debate. History will ultimately decide whether this strategy succeeds.

But if you’re trying to understand what just happened, stop viewing it through the lens of traditional diplomacy.

View it through the lens of leverage.

Because that’s the language Donald Trump has spoken his entire professional life.

And until people understand that, they’ll continue explaining his decisions after they happen instead of recognizing where they were always headed.

____________________________________________________________________________

If my appearances on WABC Radio 77 so far is any indication of what’s to come, then “When You Know...You Know,” debuting Sunday, July 12, at 5:00 p.m., is going to be one hell of a ride.

My recent broadcasts are shattering listener records, with a massive audience tuning in to hear what this new show is all about; its format, a few insider stories, and the firsthand perspective that only someone who lived it can provide.

To everyone who listened, called in, shared the excitement, and reached out afterward...thank you. Your support means more than you know, and I’m ready to get started.

And on this platform, more than 500,000 people read my articles this week alone.

Now let’s build something even bigger.

If you enjoy what you read here, please Restack, like, and share each article. Those three simple clicks help grow this community more than you can imagine.

And if you’re able, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Your support allows me to continue delivering the unfiltered analysis, insider perspective, and honest conversations you won’t find anywhere else.