Al tratar con Irán durante las últimas seis semanas, Donald Trump ha descubierto que se enfrenta a una nación que se enorgullece de su resistencia y su capacidad de hacer que las negociaciones tomen tiempo. Y nunca ha quedado tan claro como en días recientes, cuando Trump intentó presionar a Irán sosteniendo que ya se había rendido –que “aceptaron todo”, afirmó el viernes, incluso entregar su “polvo nuclear”–, solo para describir que esa labia no surte efecto con los funcionarios iraníes, que recurrieron a las redes sociales para decir que todo era una invención del presidente estadounidense.

Así que en los próximos días, suponiendo que el vicepresidente JD Vance viaje a Islamabad este martes para intentar por segunda vez alcanzar un “marco” para un acuerdo, los dos enfoques están a punto de entrar en colisión directa. Si no estuviera tanto en juego –la perspectiva de nuevos combates en Medio Oriente, la escasez mundial de energía y la posibilidad muy real de que los dirigentes iraníes supervivientes salgan convencidos de que necesitan un arma nuclear más que nunca–, sería un caso de estudio clásico sobre estilos de negociación.

“Trump es impulsivo y temperamental; los dirigentes iraníes son testarudos y tenaces”, dijo Robert Malley, quien negoció con los iraníes en el periodo previo al acuerdo nuclear de 2015 y de nuevo en un esfuerzo fallido del gobierno de Biden.

“Trump exige resultados inmediatos; los dirigentes iraníes apuestan por una estrategia a largo plazo”, continuó Malley. “Trump insiste en un resultado llamativo, que acapare titulares; los dirigentes de Irán se esfuerzan por cada detalle. Trump cree que la fuerza bruta puede obligar a la obediencia; los dirigentes iraníes están dispuestos a soportar un enorme sufrimiento antes que ceder en intereses fundamentales”.

Hay una razón por la que la última gran negociación, concluida hace 11 años, se llevó la mayor parte de dos años, y pasaba de conversaciones secretas con quien entonces era el nuevo presidente iraní de tendencia pragmática a una negociación a gran escala que implicó decenas de reuniones.

El acuerdo final constaba de más de 160 páginas, incluidos cinco anexos técnicos que definían los límites de las actividades nucleares de Irán, el ritmo del alivio de las sanciones y, lo que es más importante, las obligaciones de Irán de cumplir las inspecciones del Organismo Internacional de Energía Atómica. Cada página, y la mayoría de las disposiciones, desencadenaron una discusión; justo cuando se resolvían viejas cuestiones y parecía haber algún tipo de acuerdo, los negociadores iraníes llegaban con nuevas exigencias.

Los iraníes tienen sus propias quejas sobre los estadounidenses. El acuerdo que en 2015 finalmente se alcanzó –no se firmó, porque no era un tratado formal– fue anulado por Trump en 2018. Desde entonces, los iraníes han señalado que no tiene sentido negociar con un presidente si el siguiente va a desechar el acuerdo resultante.

Más recientemente, funcionarios iraníes han señalado que dos veces consecutivas, en junio de 2025 y de nuevo este febrero, Trump ha ordenado ataques contra Irán en medio de negociaciones diplomáticas. Los iraníes tacharon esto de perfidia, prueba de que Trump no es un interlocutor fiable.

Y la desconfianza desembocó en fuego cruzado durante el fin de semana, cerca del estrecho de Ormuz. Barcos iraníes abrieron fuego contra dos cargueros que, según dijeron, se estaban saltando el estricto control del Cuerpo de la Guardia Revolucionaria Islámica sobre quién puede, y quién no, navegar por el Estrecho. El domingo, la Marina estadounidense disparó contra la sala de máquinas de un enorme buque portacontenedores con bandera iraní, que la Marina ahora ha incautado. Trump señaló que el barco había sido sancionado por el Departamento del Tesoro en 2020, al final de su primer mandato, por un “historial previo de actividad ilegal”.

“¡Tenemos la custodia total del barco y estamos viendo lo que hay a bordo!”, escribió Trump en las redes sociales.

Una forma de interpretar estos movimientos es que son esfuerzos por dar forma a las sesiones de negociación, igual que los generales intentan dar forma al campo de batalla. Los iraníes están demostrando que, pase lo que pase o renuncien a lo que renuncien, podrán controlar el comercio a lo largo del estrecho y cobrar millones de dólares por el paso. El gobierno de Trump está demostrando que está dispuesto a reabrir las hostilidades si fracasan las negociaciones.

Leé también: Trump anunció que EE.UU. atacó y tomó el control de un barco iraní que intentaba cruzar el Golfo de Omán

Trump reforzó ese punto el domingo, cuando escribió que un buen acuerdo está sobre la mesa.

“Espero que lo acepten porque, si no lo hacen, Estados Unidos va a derribar todas y cada una de las centrales eléctricas y todos y cada uno de los puentes de Irán. BASTA DE SER UN BUEN TIPO”.

Fue el ejemplo más reciente de cómo Trump ha pasado de elogiar a los nuevos dirigentes de Irán, que sustituyeron a los que murieron en los ataques que comenzaron el 28 de febrero y a quienes calificó de “más razonables” que sus predecesores, a advertirles que se avecinan más actos de violencia si no se sale con la suya.

Pero aunque este es un elemento nuevo en las conversaciones, no lo es la división cultural en la forma de negociar.

Esa división era evidente hace 11 años, en los salones dorados del hotel Beau-Rivage Palace, de 160 años de antigüedad, en Lausana, Suiza, donde el secretario de Estado John Kerry y sus homólogos de otros cinco países se esforzaron por cerrar un acuerdo preliminar con Irán. Era, quizás, el análogo más cercano a lo que se está desarrollando ahora en Islamabad.

Cada día la delegación estadounidense hablaba sobre cuántas centrifugadoras había que desmontar y cuánto uranio había que enviar fuera del país. Sin embargo, cuando los funcionarios iraníes –incluido Abbas Araghchi, actual ministro de Asuntos Exteriores— salían de las elegantes salas con lámparas de araña para informar a los periodistas, la mayoría de las preguntas sobre esos detalles eran desechadas. Los iraníes hablaron de preservar el respeto de sus derechos y la soberanía de Irán.

“Recuerdo que finalmente conseguimos que los parámetros se acordaran en el hotel”, dijo el lunes Wendy Sherman, la principal negociadora estadounidense en aquel momento. “Y unos días después, el líder supremo salió y dijo: ‘En realidad, se requerían unos términos muy diferentes’”.

Sherman, quien llegó a ser vicesecretaria de Estado en el gobierno de Biden, acudía a estas negociaciones con un gran pelotón. A menudo tenía al principal experto en Irán de la CIA en la sala, o cerca de ella. También estaba el secretario de Energía, Ernest Moniz, experto en diseño de armas nucleares. Las propuestas planteadas por los iraníes se enviaban a los laboratorios nacionales estadounidenses, donde se diseñan y prueban las armas, para que los expertos analizaran si los acuerdos que se estaban discutiendo mantendrían a Irán al menos a un año de distancia de una bomba.

Pero el equipo negociador de Trump viaja ligero, sin séquito de expertos y con pocos informes. Jared Kushner y Steve Witkoff, el yerno del presidente y el enviado especial, aprendieron sus habilidades negociadoras en el sector inmobiliario de Nueva York y afirman que un acuerdo es un acuerdo. Dicen que se han sumergido en los detalles del programa iraní y lo conocen bien.

Por otra parte, incluso si las cuestiones que tienen delante son muy similares a las que enfrentaron los negociadores del gobierno de Obama, Kushner y Witkoff consideran que tiene poco sentido dedicar horas a desmenuzar los antecedentes diplomáticos, especialmente teniendo en cuenta lo que Trump ha dicho del acuerdo que surgió de esas negociaciones.

Pero Trump es claramente sensible ante las comparaciones que se avecinan. “El ACUERDO que estamos haciendo con Irán será MUCHO MEJOR que el JCPOA”, dijo, usando las siglas en inglés del Plan de Acción Integral Conjunto, el nombre formal del pacto de 2015. “Era un camino garantizado hacia un arma nuclear, algo que no ocurrirá, ni puede ocurrir, con el acuerdo en el que estamos trabajando”.

Y con eso, Trump fijó el criterio con el que será evaluada su propia negociación, si tiene éxito.

*Por David E. Sanger, periodista que cubre el gobierno de Donald Trump y una amplia gama de temas relacionados con la seguridad nacional. Ha sido reportero del Times durante más de cuatro décadas y ha escrito cuatro libros sobre política exterior y retos de seguridad nacional.

Britain’s elite Special Air Service (SAS) is facing a growing exodus as soldiers resign over fears they could face years of legal scrutiny for actions taken on the battlefield, according to a report in The Telegraph.

Several sources told the British newspaper that members of 22 SAS, the British Army’s most elite regiment, have applied for premature release amid anger over investigations into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan, Syria and Northern Ireland.

The debate is not confined to Britain.

American troops could face similar concerns if political leaders fail to distinguish between legitimate investigations and politically motivated campaigns, according to John Spencer, executive director of the Urban Warfare Institute. 

SIX DEMOCRATS URGE MILITARY MEMBERS TO ‘REFUSE ILLEGAL ORDERS’ IN VIRAL VIDEO; HEGSETH RESPONDS

«I welcome timely investigations of allegations of violations,» Spencer told Fox News Digital, «but want our leaders to protect all our forces, special or not, from agenda or politicized ‘witch hunts.’»

In Australia, the case of Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith has become a rallying point for veterans who fear elite soldiers could face years of legal battles after serving in combat.

Roberts-Smith, Australia’s most decorated living soldier, has denied allegations that he committed war crimes in Afghanistan. Earlier in April, Australian authorities charged him with five counts of murder related to his service in Afghanistan.

To many British veterans, the Australian case reinforces fears that the same trend could spread across other Western militaries, including the United States.  

British armed forces work with the U.S. military to evacuate eligible civilians and their families on Aug. 21, 2021, in Kabul, Afghanistan. (MoD Crown Copyright/Getty Images)

At least two SAS squadrons have been affected, with several current and former members describing the losses as a «threat to national security.» The paper did not publish the precise number of departures for security reasons.

The resignations come as Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government faces criticism over both defense spending and the treatment of veterans.

Britain’s armed forces have faced mounting scrutiny over their size and readiness in recent years. But the U.K. government says it is reversing that trend, reporting that total armed forces strength stood at 182,050 personnel as of Jan. 1, 2026, including 136,960 regular troops, an increase from the previous year.

The government also has pledged what it calls the largest sustained rise in defense spending since the Cold War, with military spending set to reach 2.6% of GDP by 2027, backed by an additional £5 billion this financial year and £270 billion in defense investment over the course of the current Parliament. Britain also has said it aims to raise defense spending to 3% of GDP by the end of the next Parliament.

Former and current soldiers said they believe Britain’s legal system has turned against troops who were sent to fight on behalf of the government.

«If a soldier discharges their weapon, they are almost certainly going to get a knock at their door one day,» George Simm, a former regimental sergeant major of 22 SAS, told The Telegraph. «It feels like a betrayal and a break in the trust.»

RETIRED GENERAL BLASTS DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS’ ‘IRRESPONSIBLE’ VIDEO URGING TROOPS TO REFUSE ‘ILLEGAL’ ORDERS

Britain’s elite Special Air Service (SAS) is facing a growing exodus as soldiers resign over fears they could face years of legal scrutiny for actions taken on the battlefield, according to a report in The Telegraph. (Omar Sobhani/Reuters)

The controversy centers on ongoing investigations into British special forces operations.

A total of 242 special forces troops, including 120 still serving, are currently involved in legal inquiries costing roughly £1 million per month. Those inquiries involve operations in Afghanistan, Northern Ireland and Syria.

Critics say those investigations have created a culture in which soldiers fear that decisions made in combat would later lead to prosecution.

Andrew Fox, a former British Army officer and senior fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, a London-based think tank, told Fox News Digital the relationship between soldiers and the government has been badly damaged.

«Soldiering contains a pact between the government and those they employ to use lethal force,» Fox said. «Soldiers will take human life within the rules set for them by international law, and in return, their governments should support them.

«This has been inverted, and international law has been weaponized and exploited by our enemies to persecute our soldiers. All too often, governments are coming down on the side of those enemies, not our troops.»

Fox said it was understandable that some soldiers would no longer want to serve.

«Of course, law breaking should be punished, but we are seeing a breakdown in trust between governments and their armed forces when politicians allow troops to be hounded through the courts unjustly,» he said.

Spencer said professional militaries depend on maintaining public trust through a strong internal justice system.

«A professional military holds the trust of its society because it lives by a strict ethical code, its laws, and its rules,» Spencer told Fox News Digital. «That trust is what gives soldiers the unique authority to use lethal force in the worst conditions a human being can face.»

Spencer said allegations of wrongdoing should be investigated quickly and fairly.

«We need investigations that move quickly and fairly on any credible allegation,» he said. «If there’s real evidence of wrongdoing under the law of armed conflict or the rules of engagement, then both the military and society must act on it. That’s how you keep the trust alive.»

PRINCE HARRY FIRES BACK AT TRUMP OVER NATO CRITICISM: ‘I LOST FRIENDS’ IN AFGHANISTAN

American troops could face similar concerns if political leaders fail to distinguish between legitimate investigations and politically motivated campaigns, according to John Spencer, executive director of the Urban Warfare Institute. (Matt Cardy/Getty Images)

At the same time, Spencer warned that some legal campaigns risk crossing the line into what troops perceive as politically motivated «witch hunts.»

«I’ve seen too many human rights lawyers blur the line between basic human rights and the actual law of armed conflict,» Spencer said. «They don’t always understand the application of the use of force in context or the split-second chaos of combat. When that turns into what troops call witch hunts, it eats away at morale and readiness.»

Spencer said governments have a responsibility both to investigate credible accusations and to protect troops from what he called agenda-driven campaigns.

«It’s also the duty of the government to shield the military from agenda-driven witch hunts,» he said. «A rigorous military justice system and honest self-policing are essential for an ethical force. Without them, the profession loses the very trust that lets it do its job.»

Britain’s Ministry of Defense spokesperson told Fox News digital that, «While it is a long-standing policy of successive governments to not comment on U.K. Special Forces, we are immensely proud of all our Armed Forces and their extraordinary contribution to keeping the U.K. safe at home and abroad.»

«We are committed to ensuring that the legal framework governing our Armed Forces reflects the practical realities of military operations — and that those who served with honor are properly protected,» he added, «Where the U.K. undertakes military action, it complies fully with U.K. and international law. We are clear that upholding those standards does not prevent our Armed Forces from conducting effective operations.»

Former British military chiefs warned in an open letter to Starmer in late 2025 that soldiers increasingly believe they must worry about «not only the enemy in front of them but the lawyer behind them.»

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

To many British veterans, the Australian case reinforces fears that the same trend could spread across other Western militaries, including the United States. (Guvendemir/Getty Iamges )

«Make no mistake,» the retired generals wrote, «our closest allies are watching uneasily, and our enemies will be rubbing their hands.»

A congressional probe launched this week into the string of missing scientists was sparked by the disappearance of a former high-ranking official who oversaw some of the military’s most classified research programs, one House Republican revealed.

Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., told Fox News Digital in an interview that he was particularly taken aback by the disappearance of retired Air Force Gen. William Neil McCasland, who vanished in February from his Albuquerque, New Mexico home. His phone and prescription glasses were left behind. 

The Missouri Republican said his staff was already working to contact McCasland, who he described as the «UFO general» due to his deep expertise, about a separate congressional investigation prior to his disappearance.

STRING OF SCIENTIST DEATHS, VANISHINGS FUELS EXPERT TALKS OF SHADOW OPS AND SILENCED SECRETS: ‘VERY SERIOUS’

«He was on our list to talk to, and he disappeared, so that kind of piqued our interest,» Burlison detailed.

McCasland is one of the 11 individuals working in nuclear or rocket technology who have died or vanished under mysterious circumstances since 2022. Some, including McCasland, have ties to UFO research. 

The astronautical engineer’s hiking boots, wallet and a .38‑caliber revolver were reported as missing, according to the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office in New Mexico.

Though federal officials have not identified a connection between the missing scientists, their shared field and potential access to sensitive research have sparked growing concern.

Asked by Fox News Digital about whether he suspects foul play is involved in McCasland’s disappearance, Burlison said, «I’m not going to jump to that conclusion, but it’s certainly suspicious.»

«How many people walk out their front door without their phone, their wallet, their keys, or anything?» Burlison added. «I don’t go anywhere without my phone. I don’t even mow the lawn without my phone.»

Rep. Eric Burlison participated in a Republican Study Committee news conference unveiling its fiscal year 2025 budget proposal at the U.S. Capitol on March 21, 2024, in Washington, D.C. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

REP BURLISON DEMANDS FBI PROBE AFTER TOP US SCIENTISTS VANISH OR TURN UP DEAD

«So it’s just really, really strange that in about a five-month period of time, four or five people walked out their front door and never returned, and were all doing advanced aerospace research,» Burlison said.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., and Burlison, who helms the Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs, opened an investigation into the missing scientists on Monday.

«I want them to determine if there’s any kind of foul play,» Burlison said, referring to the Trump administration. 

The duo sent letters to the FBI, the Department of War, NASA and the Department of Energy requesting more information about Americans who have allegedly vanished. They have also asked for a staff-level briefing by April 27 — giving them only a week to prepare.

A spokesperson for the House Oversight Committee said the panel will be releasing updates as the investigation proceeds.

Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., chairman of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, told «Fox & Friends Weekend» that he had sent letters to the leaders of several government agencies seeking information related to the mysterious deaths and disappearances of scientists in recent years. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

NASA said Monday that it would convene an interagency effort to probe the missing scientists, but cautioned that it had yet to identify any threats.

«At this time, nothing related to NASA indicates a national security threat,» NASA spokeswoman Bethany Stevens wrote on X. «The agency is committed to transparency and will provide more information as it becomes available.»

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has also said that Trump is «actively working with all relevant agencies and the FBI» to review the cases and identify any potential connections.