The recklessness of the Israeli occupation forces cannot be understood in isolation from the American recklessness. President Donald Trump has made statements in favor of negotiation, and he has repeatedly stressed his intention to resolve the complex crisis with Iran through negotiations. However, contradictions abound, aggravating Tehran’s suspicions and concerns. He links negotiations to sanctions and threatens military action - essentially placing all his cards on the table.
For its part, Tel Aviv, Trump's sole ally, is pushing for a military solution against everything it deems an Iranian threat: conventional military facilities, nuclear sites, and even economic sites. The approach of Tel Aviv and Washington - of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government and the Trump administration - breaks with that of the previous administration, which had been largely focused on containment. Now, all options are on the table. Indeed, The Wall Street Journal citing intelligence sources, reported, near the end of President Joe Biden’s term, that Israel was seeking support for attacks on Iran from the Trump administration.
Iran’s concerns are well-founded. Trump and his administration have voiced contradictory and multifaceted positions. On the one hand, he stresses that reaching a nuclear agreement is his preferred option. Just last week, however, he reinstated stringent sanctions on Iran and reaffirmed his commitment to resuming the “maximum pressure” strategy he had implemented during his previous term. On the other hand, he is narrowing Tehran’s options. He says that it has two choices: either a written agreement different from the previous one or military strikes.
This stance has angered Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and his negotiating team. On the 46th anniversary of the Iranian revolution, Pezeshkian summed up the current state of play: “If the United States is sincere about negotiating, why has it imposed sanctions?”
This is not the first time we have seen threats of military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Nonetheless, the threat seems serious this time. President Trump believes that Iran’s leadership is in a state of panic. In an interview with Fox News, he linked what he described as “Iranian panic” to the Israeli strikes on Iran’s air defense system on October 26, 2024, predicting that Tehran is eager to reach an agreement to avoid being bombed.
Iran’s leadership understands that Trump wants to negotiate their “surrender.” He wants an agreement that encompasses all of Iran’s conventional, ballistic, and nuclear capabilities, as well as its regional influence. Brigadier General Majid Khademi, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps’ Intelligence Protection Organization, responded by saying: “Trump has approached negotiations with deception and trickery. His aim is to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, missile system, and conventional weapons.” He added that negotiations with Washington have become increasingly perilous.
Concerns over Trump’s approach to Iran (military, nuclear, and foreign policy dimensions) have pushed Iran’s leadership to take a hardline position endorsed at the highest level. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has the final say, publicly rejected negotiations with Washington. “It is not intelligent and will not solve Iran’s problems,” he said, suggesting that past experiences prove Washington fails to uphold its end of the bargain, even when Tehran had made significant concessions.
Between fear and recklessness, Tehran is seeking a way out of confrontation. However, it refuses to sign an all-encompassing agreement that would contain its regional influence, restrict its ballistic missile program, and put an end to its nuclear ambitions. Such an outcome would deal a fatal blow to both the regime and the revolution. In other words, while Iran may offer concessions on certain issues, it cannot compromise on this “trinity” that sustains what remains of its “revolutionary legitimacy,” which is already the subject of an open-ended internal debate that could go either way.
