Tehran-Washington talks ...
Page 1
Larijani’s visit should be understood in this context. When negotiations with multilayered dimensions are underway, it is natural for security and regional coordination to be pursued in parallel.
These moves do not represent a parallel channel competing with the Foreign Ministry, but rather one complementing it. The Foreign Ministry follows up on the text and framework of any agreement, while security institutions are responsible for assessing strategic consequences, executive guarantees, and preventing miscalculations. At a time when the other side is coupling negotiations with military pressure, it is natural for Iran to reinforce its diplomacy with the backing of national security.
Considering the contradictory statements by Donald Trump, what do you think are his overall objectives and strategy toward Iran? How can the apparent contradiction between negotiations, increased military pressure, and rhetoric such as regime change be interpreted within a coherent strategy?
Trump’s foreign policy has relied less on “consistency in tone” and more on “effectiveness in outcomes.” For this reason, what may initially appear contradictory can, in many cases, be components of a single pattern: combining negotiation with pressure to enhance bargaining power. Within this framework, his overall strategy toward Iran appears to rest on three simultaneous pillars.
First, diplomacy under pressure. Inviting to negotiations while increasing military pressure is, in Trump’s logic, a form of “leverage-building”. In this view, negotiation is not a substitute for pressure but its continuation through political tools.
Second, managing domestic audiences and regional allies. He seeks to demonstrate simultaneously that he is pursuing an agreement while remaining “tough” on Iran and not setting aside instruments of power. This dual approach effectively enables him to frame any outcome as a success at home.
Third, psychological warfare and increasing uncertainty. Raising issues such as regime change, even without a clear operational plan behind them, aims to heighten concern and doubt on the opposing side and to shape the media environment in Washington’s favor.
However, this approach is inherently risky, as the simultaneous use of threats and dialogue can increase the likelihood of misperception, miscalculation, and unintended incidents. If the real objective is to reach a sustainable agreement, the American side will ultimately have to move beyond symbolic messaging and demonstrative pressure and enter the logic of “balanced and verifiable action,” the only path through which diplomacy can shift from fragility to reliability.
Trump has announced the deployment of a new carrier strike group to the region and stressed the need to create fear, while some US officials say the military is preparing for a several-week conflict with Iran if ordered. How do these moves affect diplomacy, and how should Iran respond?
Such positions and actions are in practice an attempt to strengthen leverage at the negotiating table. Although this approach may be designed to extract concessions, it intensifies the climate of mistrust and increases the risk of miscalculation. These developments make the negotiating environment more sensitive while also adding urgency to diplomatic prudence.
The prudent management of this situation for Iran can be summarized along three axes. First, maintaining smart and decisive deterrence without resorting to provocative behavior; second, sustaining active diplomacy with an emphasis on balanced and verifiable measures; and third, strengthening national cohesion and making clear that negotiations are conducted from a position of dignity and to safeguard national interests, not out of weakness. Strength combined with restraint represents the most effective response to pressure.