Trump’s Iran Strategy Tests the Limits of the ‘Madman Theory’

President Donald Trump has handled his war on Iran with his signature brand of unpredictability, veering from threatening “a whole civilization will die” to cheering diplomacy and Iranian freedom. It’s not clear how much he’ll have to show for it.

The U.S. and Iran are expected to begin talks this weekend in Switzerland toward a permanent end to the war. They have 59 days to agree on contentious issues, including Iran’s nuclear program, economic sanctions and a new regional arrangement governing the Strait of Hormuz.

It’s a particularly delicate period, but Trump remains deeply volatile. The negotiations will test the “madman theory” of foreign policy the president leans on: assuming adversaries will cave because they don’t know how far he will go. They will also test whether U.S. officials can reach mutually agreeable terms when their boss might shift the goalposts at any time — an especially significant task given how massive the global cost of resuming conflict with Iran has become.

“I am old enough to remember President Nixon’s ‘madman theory,’” said Alan Eyre, a former U.S. career diplomat, of Nixon’s handling of the Vietnam War. Trump, he said, “is doing what he does because he can’t do otherwise, and that’s the biggest threat. He has no strategic messaging. … He’s going to sabotage negotiations, not just by moving red lines, which I think he probably will do, but by saying stuff in the media that’s going to have an effect.”

Eyre, who helped negotiate the 2015 Iran nuclear deal under then-President Barack Obama, continued: “That’s one of the many reasons why I don’t think that the U.S. will be able to negotiate a nuclear agreement in 60 days, 120 days or however many days.”

White House officials have long credited Trump’s unpredictability with frightening rivals into concessions, producing good deals for Americans. Trump has threatened major escalations — including illegal ones — against Tehran for months, seemingly in hopes of forcing compromises.

A senior White House official said Trump’s comments will ensure all involved know the president’s red lines and thoughts concerning the ongoing negotiations. Vice President JD Vance, U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner will take the lead, along with a team of technical experts ready to be deployed, the official said.

“It’s an asset because no one will have to read between the lines,” the senior official said — on the U.S. side or the Iranian side. “It gives direction to everyone.”

Vice President JD Vance, U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are expected to lead talks. Jacquelyn Martin/AP

But Trump has now embraced a framework for talks that overwhelmingly benefits Iran, and experts say the president’s volatility is unlikely to tilt the discussions in the U.S.’s favor.

The Iranians “go into this thinking they have the upper hand,” said Wendy Sherman, a top American negotiator on the Obama-era Washington-Tehran nuclear deal, which Trump later abandoned. “Initially there was belief by some that the madman approach might work, but it has been shown to be toothless.”

“At the end of the day,” she added, “Trump has agreed to a bad deal because the war didn’t turn out the way he wanted it to.”

Iran has learned to focus on tangible signs of Trump’s preferences rather than his language, seeing his unpredictability as a strategy rather than taking it at face value, said Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy think tank.

Toossi pointed to last weekend, when Trump criticized Israel for bombing the Lebanese capital of Beirut after Iran said an emerging ceasefire had to cover Lebanon. Iranian decision-makers did not perceive it as a U.S.-Israeli split, but instead a test from Washington of how Iran would handle the matter, Toossi said. Iran ultimately launched major barrages against Israel and doubled down on including Lebanon in peace talks.

After two U.S.-Israeli assaults in less than two years since Trump’s return to office, Iran has seen that depleting stocks of U.S. weaponry “didn’t move the needle for Trump,” but bolstering gas prices by shutting down Hormuz did, Toossi said.

And for all of Trump’s claims last week that he loved the spike in inflation due to increased energy costs, he showed his hand Wednesday in France when discussing why he moved to sign the memorandum.

“I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe,” the president said at a press conference before leaving the G7 meeting. “If you kept this going, that could have happened.”

Beyond the U.S.-Iran negotiators, Trump’s capriciousness has competing implications for outside players.

Caution about Trump — and a desire to stay in his good graces — could limit Netanyahu’s efforts to scuttle U.S.-Iran talks, though he and other Israeli hard-liners dislike the idea of a compromise with Tehran.

Countries like Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates also fear Washington will be too conciliatory toward Iran, but are unlikely to broadcast skepticism of the negotiations because they want to remain involved. Those nations have outsize influence through their business ties with Trump and his circle, particularly the leading negotiators Witkoff and Kushner; they could wield their sway to try to ensure any final settlement is not limited to nuclear issues.

Human rights advocates are similarly hoping Trump can reshape talks in their favor. Iran’s record of repression is largely ignored in the memorandum currently underpinning the talks. But if the president gives the issues new attention — for instance, by reiterating his pledge to free Americans jailed abroad — it could make Iranian gestures of good will, like releasing detained U.S. citizens, part of the diplomacy.

Ryan Fayhee, an attorney representing the jailed U.S. journalist Reza Valizadeh, told NOTUS the White House has emphasized to him that “the Iranians are well aware of the need to have these Americans released.”

Domestically, Trump’s willingness to assail fellow Republicans who question his foreign policy choices (like soon-to-be-unseated Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky) could stem criticism of the negotiations, though some GOP discontent is already bubbling up. Deploying a “madman” approach toward Republicans might help the administration convince Congress to lift the many layers of legally enshrined American sanctions on Iran, and to stave off new legislation limiting U.S.-Iran engagement.

Conversely, however, a former U.S. official noted “real concern” that Trump will, amid the talks, again be persuaded by anti-Iran voices — like the talk show host Mark Levin or the Israeli-American Republican megadonor Miriam Adelson — to abandon diplomacy with Tehran.

The former official told NOTUS they doubt any further settlement can be reached, despite predictions from some in the Trump administration of a dramatic U.S.-Iran rapprochement.

“I think this is it: The status quo is good enough, everyone moves on,” said the former official, who requested anonymity to protect relationships. Trump might bolster tensions again, seeking a drastic change from the Iranians, “but there is no world in which more war results in a different outcome.”