President Donald Trump has the United States stuck in a conflict with Iran, unable to win significant concessions and unwilling to back down in the face of obvious failure. It’s possible the two sides could strike a deal, but if so, the resulting agreement is unlikely to be favorable to the U.S. and could leave Iran in a stronger position than before the war. This problem is of Trump’s own making: In spending years demonstrating that he has no credibility, he has by extension trashed America’s credibility as well.
Credibility gives words power. For words to change others’ behavior, listeners have to believe them. Promises don’t work if the recipients think you’ll break them; threats don’t work if the targets think you won’t follow through.
Even if Iran is open to making concessions, it can’t be sure which ones will appease Trump.
Domestically, if someone breaks a contract, a counterparty can seek recourse in court and the government will enforce the results. That makes the contract more credible, which makes people more willing to enter into deals. But internationally, all countries have is their word, physical capabilities and patterns of behavior. Trump’s behavior has convinced the world that he cannot be trusted. His word is worthless.
Nowhere is that clearer than in relations between the U.S. and Iran. Trump has been trying to get the Iranians to capitulate or at least make concessions, especially on their nuclear program. At every step, though, he has undercut U.S. credibility.
To begin with, Trump hasn’t made a consistent ask. At various times he’s called for regime change, unconditional surrender, a total end to Iran’s nuclear program, curtailing Iran’s missile program, changing Iran’s stance toward Israel, ending Iran’s support for regional proxies and more. Even if Iran is open to making concessions, it can’t be sure which ones will appease Trump. And the warnings of regime change from Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have hardened Iranian leaders’ resolve to endure a protracted conflict.
On the nuclear issue, Trump made the U.S. less credible by reneging on the 2015 deal that restricted Iran’s nuclear program, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, even though Iran was following the agreement. The U.S. bombed Iranian nuclear sites in 2025, and Trump claimed the country’s nuclear program was “totally and completely obliterated.” Yet within a year, Trump said Iran was on the verge of multiple nuclear weapons. Both of those claims were lies, so Iran can’t trust that Trump will base future decisions on factual reality.
Just as Trump has bombed Iran multiple times after Washington and Tehran cut a deal, Israel employs a strategy known as “mowing the grass,” in which the Israeli military destroys a lot of an enemy’s weaponry then, when more builds up, returns to do it again. So even if Iranian leaders believe they can make concessions to end the war now, they can’t trust that either U.S. or Israel will honor the deal, instead of bombing again in a few months.
Trump’s lack of credibility can be seen in Europe, too.
Finally, Trump bounced from genocidal threats — “a whole civilization will die tonight” — to agreeing to negotiate on Iran’s terms, to reneging by having U.S. representatives demand significant concessions. Iran knows his warnings are often empty bluster, but can’t know which ones. It’s possible that even the president doesn’t know.
In short, neither Trump’s threats nor his promises nor his deals are credible. He has neither made clear demands nor offered a face-saving off-ramp. How can Iran — or any foreign government — deal with this administration with any confidence?
Trump’s lack of credibility can be seen in Europe, too. The president, furious at NATO member countries for not joining the war with Iran, has tried to coerce them into helping by threatening to withdraw from NATO. Unsurprisingly, that hasn’t convinced the Europeans. The president has long threatened to leave NATO, miscasting the defense pact as a protection racket. He’s demanded territory from NATO allies — namely Greenland from Denmark — and repeatedly lies that they never do anything for the U.S., even though the only time NATO invoked the mutual protection clause of Article V was after the Sept. 11 attacks. Hundreds of troops from NATO allies lost their lives fighting alongside U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
The real fallout from Trump’s anger at NATO is the undermining of its deterrent against Russia. Who believes that the Trump administration would honor America’s commitment to NATO in the event of a Russian attack? If a menaced country asks NATO for help, would Trump express support and deploy U.S. forces? Or would he say Russian President Vladimir Putin has a point, ape Russian propaganda, blame Moscow’s target and decline to send troops?
Trump defenders say his erratic approach to negotiating is a deliberate technique to keep others guessing. He throws others off, yes. But even if we generously assume it’s strategic — and not, say, the temperamental narcissism of a rich egotist who’s used to getting away with bullying — what has it gained for the U.S. that a more traditional approach could not? Despite being more than a year into his second term, he has shockingly few deals for a leader who touts himself as a dealmaker.
As Trump grasps for a way to end the Iran war, his torching of the country’s credibility has come to a head. He has no concessions from Tehran, little allied support and few good ways to get out of the situation. And this problem will outlast not only this war, but Trump’s time in office. Even if the next American president is more reliable, the rest of the world now thinks the U.S. is at most four years away from potentially reneging on any agreement, which makes entering into those agreements more difficult in the first place. Credibility, once lost, is hard to get back.
Nicholas Grossman
Nicholas Grossman is a political science professor at the University of Illinois, editor of Arc Digital and the author of "Drones and Terrorism."