Iran has only one goal in the negotiations with the USA, as security expert Nico Lange says.Image: keystone
Nico Lange explains why Trump is playing for time in the war with Tehran – and why the mullahs’ regime could still have more leverage.
May 1, 2026, 5:22 p.mMay 1, 2026, 5:22 p.m
There has been an official ceasefire in the Iran war since April 8th. According to Donald Trump, negotiations are currently taking place by telephone. Do you still have hope for an agreement?
Nico Lange: I have hope for an agreement, but not a quick deal. This is where two very different negotiation cultures come together. Trump, who always says: “Now bang, there has to be a deal.” And the Iranians, who are known to negotiate tough and slow. Trump has achieved a lot with his war, but he has not achieved that the representatives of the Iranian regime are unable to act. They can continue to block the Strait of Hormuz and attack the Gulf states and Israel with drones and missiles. That’s why Trump has to get involved in these tough negotiations now.
Which party has more control?
The USA is much stronger than Iran. Increasing financial pressure is a promising approach because the Iranian regime has only one goal: maintaining power. And for that they need money. In this respect, it is possible that this will lead to a change in the Iranian position. It just doesn’t happen quickly. We are all held hostage to this situation with the Strait of Hormuz. This could drag on for a long time. It is not yet possible to say what kind of agreement will ultimately be reached in terms of content.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said this week that the Iranian leadership’s negotiating style was “incredibly good.” How do you see that?
I have trouble praising Iran’s leadership. With the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has an important instrument of power. If I were in Germany, I would rather think about how I myself can help increase the pressure on Iran, because honestly – Trump or not – everyone is interested in this succeeding, free shipping through the Strait of Hormuz being possible again and Iran not having a nuclear bomb.
Nico Lange is founder and director of the Institute for Risk Analysis and International Security (IRIS).Image: www.imago-images.de
How should Europe actually proceed?
From an economic perspective, it would be cheaper to help the US as much as possible to reach an agreement with Iran. Not doing that and instead just commenting, but then using a lot of tax money or debt to try to dampen the effects of these crises could be very expensive. We should not give the impression that Europe and the USA are allowing themselves to be divided.
Tensions between Europe and the USA are becoming ever greater. Now Trump is threatening to do so. to withdraw troops from Germany. What would that mean?
Well, Friedrich Merz made, as they would say in tennis, an “unforced error”. He chatted during a school visit that Trump has no plan. And Trump is just Trump. He then shoots back and has the feeling that he has to get one over on the Germans immediately because of it. As German Chancellor, you could avoid making this remark from the start, then you wouldn’t have to deal with the consequences. As far as the US withdrawal of troops from Germany is concerned, I would deal with the threats calmly. The US forces in Germany are not here to defend Germany. They serve the strategic interests of the USA. The Americans would be shooting themselves in the foot if they withdrew their troops.
Vladimir Putin publicly pledged his support to Iran this week. How do you see his role?
During the hot phase of the war, Putin did nothing for Iran, nor for Venezuela. And the Russian air defense systems were quickly dispatched in both Venezuela and Iran. Now that the USA is having difficulties and there is tension between the Americans and the Europeans, he is trying to stir things up a bit. This is typical of Putin. There is no major Russian Iran strategy behind this.
So Putin doesn’t really want to help the Iranians?
Any division between Americans and Europeans benefits Putin. In this respect, he will always try to promote this division. And if he can play a double game, supporting Iran on the one hand and offering to help Trump with Iran on the other, then Putin makes himself relevant in this whole story. I think that’s what he’s about.
At the moment it doesn’t seem as if the Americans and the Iranians will come to an agreement any time soon. Who will endure this game of patience longer?
My fear is that Iran has an advantage in this game because this mullahs’ regime simply doesn’t care about how people are doing. The Iranian population is already doing badly. If things get worse for them, it won’t matter to the regime. All they care about is staying in power while the US president has to respond to rising prices and agitated global markets.
Can the mood in Iran no longer spill over like it did at the beginning of the year?
Unfortunately, the people of Iran have no options to overthrow the regime. So I wouldn’t base my strategy on that, as bitter as that is. And as far as financial pressure is concerned: it could be that the whole thing will take some time. The Iranian government’s motto is: the main thing is that the other side suffers more.
Do the Americans have enough missiles for a long war?
We all have a problem with missile and drone defense. If you use a lot of ammunition in the first weeks of the war and produce it slowly, then of course there will be a shortage. This is a problem that I think we have all over the world. It is difficult to estimate how many missiles Iran still has and whether Iran can produce missiles because many of the facilities are underground. What we have seen, however, is that for long stretches of this war, Iran was able to continue to shoot down at least a certain number of drones and missiles every day. That’s the problem for the USA.
Let’s assume Trump unilaterally declares victory in Iran and withdraws his troops in the next few weeks. Iran would be left stronger. What would that mean for the world?
So, first of all, it might not be so unwise if Trump had done this long ago, since he no longer has any good military options. I wouldn’t rule out the option yet. Maybe there’s no deal. Iran is unlikely to give up the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz as a new instrument of power. International engagement will be necessary.
What would this look like?
There will be no return to the previous situation because Iran will always try to use the blockade as an instrument of blackmail. What the situation will look like after the war depends on the negotiations. There are various things conceivable at the moment, and none of them are really good: Iran will have to pay to drive through the Strait of Hormuz. There could be a ban on Israeli ships. It is also conceivable that military protection for ships will be necessary in the future. The question then becomes which countries can afford this? Will multiple countries work together and organize? After all, in addition to the Europeans, India, Japan and many other countries are also interested in the safe passage of ships. At best we are only at the beginning of the considerations. It is clear that the Gulf states will play a major role.
What does that mean for the region?
That all states in the region are arming themselves: the United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia, they will not allow themselves to be attacked by Iran, but will instead equip themselves so that they can better defend themselves. Most likely to such an extent that they can strike back against Iran themselves, they should attack again with drones and missiles, as was the case at the beginning of the Iran War.
Further escalations would then be to be feared.
But we must realize that the root cause of these regional problems is Iran’s mullahs’ regime. We all have an interest in ensuring that the mullahs get away, that the people of Iran can live freely and that this urge for the atomic bomb stops. (fwa)