The article examines criticism from columnist Tom Friedman regarding former President Donald Trump’s recent approach to Iran and Middle East diplomacy.

According to Friedman, Trump’s strategy—combining military pressure on Iran with diplomatic expectations tied to the Abraham Accords—has unintentionally strengthened Iran’s strategic position rather than weakening it.Friedman argues that U.S.and Israeli assumptions about quickly forcing Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions were overly optimistic and based on flawed expectations of regime collapse.

Instead, he claims Iran has learned to leverage asymmetrical tools such as low-cost drones and disruption tactics that could threaten critical global infrastructure, including the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil transit chokepoint.

The article highlights concerns that Iran now recognizes its ability to exert pressure on global energy markets, giving it long-term leverage in future conflicts or negotiations.

Friedman also criticizes Trump’s recent Truth Social post, in which the former president urged Middle Eastern countries to join or expand the Abraham Accords and even suggested the possibility of Iran joining.The columnist describes this idea as unrealistic given the deep ideological and political hostility between Iran and Israel.He argues that proposing such a framework without expert consultation reflects a lack of strategic coherence and raises concerns among U.S.allies about American leadership reliability.

Overall, the piece portrays Friedman’s view that Trump’s approach may be diplomatically disconnected from regional realities and could destabilize rather than resolve tensions.It suggests that miscalculations in U.S.policy toward Iran risk empowering Tehran with new forms of influence while undermining trust among allies in the Middle East.