By Prof Tarh Ntantang
INTRODUCTION
The evolving diplomatic engagement between the United States under President Donald Trump and the Islamic Republic of Iran has rekindled one of the oldest debates in international relations: Can sustainable peace emerge from coercion, or must it be the product of genuine negotiations? This article argues that while military superiority and economic sanctions may compel adversaries to the negotiating table, they rarely produce durable peace unless accompanied by mutual recognition, compromise, and respect for sovereignty. Drawing on theories of conflict resolution, coercive diplomacy, realism, liberal institutionalism, and historical case studies, including the Camp David Accords, the Good Friday Agreement, the Dayton Peace Agreement, the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA), and the Vietnam peace talks, the article contends that enduring peace is fundamentally negotiated rather than imposed. Recent discussions surrounding a possible Trump-Iran peace arrangement illustrate both the opportunities and the limitations of pressure-based diplomacy. Although reports indicate ongoing contacts and intermittent proposals for a broader settlement, significant mistrust remains between Washington and Tehran, making any durable agreement dependent on reciprocal concessions rather than unilateral demands.
International politics has long shown that wars may begin through force, but they rarely end through force alone. Lasting peace requires dialogue, compromise, and political legitimacy. The renewed diplomatic initiatives between President Trump and Iran have revived an enduring principle in conflict resolution: peace cannot simply be dictated by the stronger party. It must be negotiated by all parties willing to coexist. Throughout history, attempts to impose peace through military occupation, sanctions, or coercive diplomacy have often produced only temporary stability. By contrast, negotiated settlements, however imperfect, have been successful in reducing violence and creating mechanisms for long-term conflict management.
Trump’s approach towards Iran has combined military pressure, economic sanctions, and diplomacy. It is worth noting that recent reporting indicates that although Washington and Tehran have maintained contact and explored possible agreements, deep disagreements over sanctions, regional security, and nuclear issues continue to complicate any comprehensive settlement. The central argument of this article is straightforward: military power may create opportunities for negotiation, but only negotiation creates sustainable peace.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
REALISM
Realist thinkers such as Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz argue that international politics is governed by power rather than morality. Thus, under realism: states negotiate only when it serves their national interest; military strength creates bargaining leverage; and peace reflects a balance of power rather than friendship. Trump’s “Maximum pressure” strategy is consistent with realist thinking because it seeks to strengthen the US negotiating position before any agreement.
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM
On the other hand, liberal theorists argue that peace is maintained through diplomacy, institutions, treaties, economic cooperation, and mutual confidence-building. Examples include the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and nuclear verification regimes. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) exemplified this approach by combining inspections, monitoring, and phased sanctions relief with negotiated commitments.
CONFLICT RESOLUTION THEORY
Scholars, including Johan Galtung and John Paul Lederach, distinguished between negative peace (the absence of war) and positive peace, which entails justice, reconciliation, and sustainable relationships. In this light, a ceasefire alone does not represent peace; durable stability requires institutions capable of managing future disputes.
TRUMP’S APPROACH TOWARDS IRAN
Trump’s Iran policy has been characterised by two seemingly contradictory strategies, namely maximum military and economic pressure and openness to negotiating what he has described as a better agreement. Recent diplomatic contacts suggest that both sides have explored negotiations, but Iran has repeatedly emphasised that meaningful progress requires reciprocal concessions rather than unilateral compliance. This illustrates the paradox of coercive diplomacy, where pressure can encourage talks, yet excessive pressure may erode the trust required to conclude them.
PEACE CANNOT BE IMPOSED
International experience demonstrates several reasons why imposed peace often fails.
- SOVEREIGNTY MATTERS
Every sovereign state seeks recognition of its independence. Any external attempts to dictate outcomes frequently provoke resistance rather than compliance. Iran has consistently framed negotiations in terms of sovereignty and national unity. - DOMESTIC LEGITIMACY
Political leaders must justify agreements to their domestic audiences. Thus, an agreement perceived as surrender often lacks political sustainability. - MUTUAL TRUST
For any negotiation to be unanimously accepted, there must be credible commitment s, verification, and reciprocity. Without these elements, agreements frequently collapse.
HISTORICAL ILLUSTRATIONS OF SOME PEACE ACCORDS
THE CAMP DAVID ACCORDS 1978
President Jimmy Carter successfully mediated negotiations between Egypt and Israel. This success stemmed from each side making concessions, offering security guarantees, and both governments accepting compromises. As a result, peace endured because it was negotiated rather than imposed.
THE GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT 1998
Northern Ireland’s conflict ended through inclusive negotiations. Constitutional compromise, power sharing, and international mediation. Neither side achieved total victory, but both achieved political coexistence.
THE DAYTON AGREEMENT
The Bosnian conflict ended after prolonged negotiations, international mediation, and institutional guarantees. Military intervention created leverage. Throughout the negotiations, peace was restored.
VIETNAM
During the US-Vietnam War, the United States possessed overwhelming military superiority. Nevertheless, military victory proved elusive, and negotiations in Paris ultimately ended American involvement. The lessons from the above are clear. Military superiority alone cannot secure political outcomes.
THE JCPOA (2015)
The Iran Nuclear Agreement was the product of years of diplomacy among Iran, the United States, the European Union, Russia, China, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
Although controversial, it demonstrated that sustained negotiations can yield verifiable agreements even among deeply distrustful adversaries.
CHALLENGES FACING A TRUMP-IRAN AGREEMENT
Even though new rounds of negotiations have opened, several structural obstacles remain.
HISTORICAL MISTRUST
US-Iran relations have been shaped by decades of sanctions, proxy conflicts, and competing regional interests.
REGIONAL SECURITY
The Gulf Arab states, Israel, and other regional actors have significant security concerns that influence negotiations.
NUCLEAR ISSUES
The verification, enrichment limits, and sanctions remain central points of contention.This is the crux of the ongoing war.
DOMESTIC POLITICS
Leadership changes and internal political dynamics in both countries can complicate implementation. Recent analyses indicate that diplomacy continues intermittently despite persistent disagreement over the terms of any lasting settlement.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
A sustainable US-Iran settlement would likely require the following core values, including mutual recognition of security concerns, gradual sanctions relief linked to verified commitments, independent, unbiased international monitoring, regional dialogue involving Gulf states, confidence-building measures before addressing broader disputes, and continued diplomatic engagement during periods of crisis.
CONCLUSION
The history of international diplomacy demonstrates a consistent truth: lasting peace cannot be manufactured through coercion alone. Military force may alter the strategic environment, and economic sanctions may increase bargaining incentives. Diplomatic pressure may create openings for dialogue. Yet none of these instruments, by themselves, can substitute for negotiated political compromise. The evolving US-Iran engagement under President Donald Trump illustrates this reality. While pressure has at times brought the parties into contact, any enduring settlement will depend on reciprocal commitments, credible implementation mechanisms, and sufficient political legitimacy to survive changes in leadership and regional tensions. Recent reporting suggests that discussions continue, but major differences remain unresolved, underscoring that diplomacy is a process rather than a single event. Ultimately, the central lesson of modern conflict resolution remains unchanged: Wars may be fought by armies, but peace is built by negotiators. Lasting peace is not imposed by the victor; it is negotiated by former adversaries who recognise that coexistence is preferable to perpetual conflict.
Prof. TARH NTANTANG (Ph.D)
FOUNDER/CEO OF NTANTANG RESEARCH AND CONSULTING CENTER, YAOUNDE, CAMEROON. He is a global policy expert and a practitioner in democracy support, peacebuilding, and governance with over a decade of experience across Africa. He holds a doctorate in political economy and international affairs from the University of Yaounde 1 and is also a certified climate migration scholar at York University, Toronto, Canada.
