Dr. Avi Perry,talk show host at Paltalk News Network (PNN), is the author of "Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks,"and "72 Virgins," a thriller about the covert war on Islamic terror. He was a VP at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories - distinguished staff member and manager, as well as a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to the ITU—the UN International Standards body in Geneva, a professor at Northwestern University and Intelligence expert for the Israeli Government. He may be reached through his web site www.aviperry.org

Mike Tyson once famously said, "Everyone has a plan until they get a punch in the face." I admire the simple, yet profound, wisdom in that brief statement. This life lesson, which awaits anyone who hasn’t yet encountered it, seems to be unfolding before our eyes in the case of President Trump.

Dealing with unpredictable figures like Putin and the Ayatollah differs significantly from engaging with those who regard the lives and happiness of their subjects as worthy or valuable. These extremists think and act in ways that starkly contrast with rational individuals who pursue win-win outcomes in negotiations. Instead, they adopt an all-or-nothing approach, indifferent to the cost in their own people’s lives as long as their objectives are met.

This observation extends beyond the two mentioned earlier. It is a characteristic commonly seen in dictators who govern with minimal support from their citizens. The only effective way to negotiate with them is to apply pressure and threats that target them directly, rather than solely affecting their country’s population. They show little concern for their citizens, focusing solely on their own interests, which should be the primary target President Trump aims for when dealing with these tyrants.

President Trump has voiced strong confidence that reason would guide his dealings with Putin, but he has been proven wrong. He struggles to understand irrational actors, having been shaped by a Western democracy where leaders are held accountable through fair elections and must meet voter expectations to secure re-election—a rational system.

Dictators, however, operate with a completely different mindset, employing deceptive negotiation tactics that appear to involve compromise but conceal a hidden agenda that undermines any agreement they sign. For them, it is an all-or-nothing approach. History stands as my evidence.

Let’s examine historical examples.

• Adolf Hitler signed a peace agreement with Neville Chamberlain (1938), Great Britain’s Prime Minister, conceding Czechoslovakia in the Munich Agreement of 1938, only to violate it shortly afterward by invading the Sudetenland and later the rest of Czechoslovakia.
• Joseph Stalin and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (1939): Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union, signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany’s Adolf Hitler, including a secret protocol to divide Eastern Europe. This allowed the Soviets to invade eastern Poland in 1939 alongside Germany. However, in 1941, Hitler violated the pact by preparing for war against the Soviet Union, launching Operation Barbarossa, catching the Soviets off guard despite their own buildup. Hitler’s initial compliance was a tactical delay, violated when he felt ready to shift alliances or defend Soviet interests.
• Saddam Hussein and the 1991 Gulf War Ceasefire (1991): After Iraq’s defeat in the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s dictator, agreed to a ceasefire with the UN coalition, pledging to destroy weapons of mass destruction and comply with inspections. Over the following years, he repeatedly obstructed UN inspectors and violated the terms, notably by allegedly continuing weapons programs. This defiance persisted until the 2003 invasion, suggesting he violated the agreement when he believed he could evade consequences or rebuild strength.
• Fidel Castro and the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis Agreement: Following the Cuban Missile Crisis, Castro, as Cuba’s leader, agreed to remove Soviet missiles under U.S. pressure and a promise of non-invasion. However, he later supported revolutionary movements across Latin America and Africa, indirectly challenging the spirit of the agreement by exporting instability, likely when he felt secure under Soviet backing.
• Similarly, Hamas has signed multiple ceasefire agreements with Israel, each of which they breached time and again once they felt prepared to resume hostilities.
• Consider North Korea as well—they signed an agreement promising not to develop nuclear weapons, yet violated it after exploiting the deal to secure numerous concessions and benefits.

These cases highlight a pattern where dictators use agreements as temporary tools, violating them when they perceive a strategic advantage or sufficient power, often disregarding the human cost to their populations or international trust. The motivations—whether territorial expansion, resource control, or political survival—vary, but the outcome consistently undermines the agreements’ intent. This behavior aligns with a mindset that prioritizes absolute control over negotiated stability, a trait not unique to these individuals but common among authoritarian rulers.

North Korea’s deception has yielded economic relief, technological advancements, political leverage, internal stability, and a buffer against military action. By exploiting the international community’s desire for diplomacy, the regime has turned agreements into a means of survival and strength, violating them when ready to pursue its ultimate objective: a nuclear-armed state capable of deterring intervention.

This tactic underscores the challenge of negotiating with dictators who prioritize self-preservation over mutual trust, as historical outcomes repeatedly demonstrate.

North Korea has skillfully benefited from its deceptive approach to agreements, using them as strategic tools to extract economic aid, technological advancements, political leverage, internal stability, and a buffer against military action, all the while advancing its nuclear ambitions.

--The 1994 Agreed Framework provided over $400 million in fuel oil and access to dual-use reactor technology, which the regime exploited to secretly develop its nuclear program, culminating in the 2006 test, despite pledging to freeze it.

-The 2005 Six-Party Talks yielded initial energy aid, only for North Korea to conduct another test in 2006, while the 2018 summits with the U.S. and South Korea offered propaganda victories and a pause in military exercises, allowing continued missile development, including ICBMs by 2017.

-Earlier agreements, like the 1953 Armistice and 2012 Leap Day deal, provided similar breathing room, with violations enabling resource stockpiling and military fortification, all while Kim Jong Un consolidated power by portraying himself as a deft negotiator.

This pattern of stalling—gaining aid, time, and legitimacy before breaching terms when ready—highlights how North Korea turns diplomacy into a means of survival, reinforcing its goal of becoming a nuclear power immune to external pressure, as history consistently bears witness.

Iran has closely observed and studied North Korea’s journey to developing a nuclear bomb, with the Ayatollah likely recognizing that once North Korea achieved this capability, its enemies ceased issuing threats against it. This lesson appears to have resonated deeply with Iran, especially given the counter-threats directed at the regime, suggesting a strategic intent to follow a similar path.

Iran has a documented history of deception, maintaining secret nuclear sites hidden from UN inspectors tasked with monitoring its nuclear capabilities, making its intention to acquire a nuclear bomb unmistakable. The country has no need for nuclear power, even for peaceful purposes, as it is abundant in domestic oil resources, leaving uranium enrichment with no logical purpose other than developing a nuclear weapon. Furthermore, Iran’s openly stated goal of launching a genocidal attack on Israel and intimidating its neighbors provides a clear motive for pursuing this path.

If President Trump proceeds with the negotiations and signs an agreement with Iran, in which Iran "agrees" to halt its nuclear development, it’s almost certain that nothing will prevent them from continuing covertly along this path, just like North Korea, India, Pakistan and even Israel, while the Ayatollah gains the benefits of appearing to cooperate with the U.S.

Such an agreement could restrain Israel from defending itself against a nuclear-armed Iran, effectively giving Iran a clear path to achieving its ultimate objective. This is why an agreement between the U.S. and Iran may pose a greater danger than having no agreement at all.

Someone must persuade Donald Trump that he has been entrapped by an Iranian deception and his desire for a diplomatic solution. Someone should remind him of North Korea’s path to nuclear weapons and how closely it mirrors Iran’s current course. Someone needs to emphasize Iran’s motivations, especially the Ayatollah’s deep-seated desire to destroy Israel, a goal rooted in their religious ideology and openly declared.

The U.S. persists in assuring the world that it will prevent Iran from achieving nuclear status, yet it depends on hope that Iran will honor what it hopes is an upcoming agreement—a strategy that failed with North Korea and other similar cases. The only viable way to stop Iran might be through conventional war before it is too late.