DID Press: Dany Citrinowicz, former head of Iran division in Israeli military intelligence, has said in a recent analysis that Iran entered post-negotiation dynamics from a position of strength rather than weakness, which explains its refusal to make significant concessions during talks.
He stated that there had been an assumption in United States policy circles that sustained military and economic pressure had sufficiently weakened Iran, making it possible to impose a deal aligned with U.S. demands—particularly regarding uranium enrichment and control over the Strait of Hormuz. However, he argued that the outcome of the negotiations disproved this assessment.
Citrinowicz warned that a return to large-scale military confrontation would not necessarily force Iran into submission. Instead, it could significantly expand the scope of conflict and cause serious damage to the global economy. He added that any broad military escalation, including strikes on Iranian infrastructure or actions such as occupying islands, would come at a high cost and provoke a strong and wide-ranging response, without fundamentally altering Iran’s strategic positions.
According to his assessment, U.S. President Donald Trump faces three options:
- continuing negotiations
- ending confrontation without agreement
- or returning to military escalation
However, he stressed that all three scenarios are constrained by the same reality: Iran is an actor that cannot easily be forced into retreat through pressure alone.