London – Steve Witkoff, a special envoy in the Middle East (West Asia) of Trump, is amazed by his sudden change in tone. Not long ago, he defended “maximum pressure” on Iran, but now he talks about “building trust” and “solving misconceptions.” This harsh contradiction in the Trump administration’s approach has now been revealed again in its deal with Iran.
What began as a threat and potential war policy is now moving towards negotiation and diplomatic overture efforts. But what is behind this sudden shift? Has the Trump administration realized that its maximum pressure strategy failed, or is this a tactic to buy time?
In a recent interview, Witkov revealed that Trump sent a message to Tehran and proposed consultations based on “mutual respect.” This contrasts with the offensive rhetoric of Mike Waltz, the White House national security adviser who last week declared that the administration was aiming to “completely dismantle Iran’s nuclear program.” These contradictory stances underline the deep disparities within the Trump administration’s strategy. However, this is not the first time that the White House’s Iranian policy has been marked by confusion and contradictions.
When Trump withdrew from the JCPOA during his first term, he promised to bring Iran to the negotiation table. Instead, the opposition occurred. Not only did Iran refuse to retreat, it also expanded its nuclear activity and strengthened its regional influence. At the time, the White House repeatedly insisted that negotiations would not take place unless Tehran abandons its nuclear program entirely. Fast forward to 2025, despite all the threats and sanctions, the US reportedly calls for consultation, as well as suggesting that it will ease the initial sanctions of Trump’s letter to Iran.
This change is largely due to the domestic challenges of the US and faces economic issues and public dissatisfaction, and Trump needs a foreign policy victory to present him as a success. The military conflict with Iran is very expensive, so he is at least trying to secure a temporary agreement to present it as an outcome. However, Iran, who has experienced the JCPOA, is no longer easily shaken by the White House promises.
In a subtle response to Trump’s message, Ayatollah Seiyed Ali Khamenei, leader of the Islamic Revolution, said the threat and incentives were not working against Iran. Tehran repeatedly emphasized that it must not be negotiated under pressure and that the dialogue must be based on mutual respect. This stance makes it clear that Trump’s proposal is unlikely to gain traction with Iran, at least for now.
But Trump’s tone changes sends a clear message. The White House policy against Iran has failed. This failure is not just diplomatic. It’s clear on the ground too. In recent years, the US has worked hard to isolate Iran economically and politically, but Iran has not only avoided isolation, but has strengthened its ties with Russia, China and even the Arab countries. For Trump, this is a bitter medicine to swallow, forcing him to move from a position of strength to a softer approach.
But does this shift show a real retreat? Many believe that Trump is still playing the carrot and stick game. On the one hand, he speaks of negotiations in a diplomatic tone, while on the other he continues to threaten “military action.” This dual strategy was a hallmark of his administration. When Trump sent a peace message to North Korea, he simultaneously tightened sanctions. When he spoke about withdrawing US troops from Western Asia, he quickly deployed more warships to the region. He now takes the same approach as Iran.
The difference this time is the reaction of Iran. Tehran is no longer in a hurry to negotiate, hoping to reach an agreement as it had been in the past. Iranian policymakers are well aware that Trump is looking for propaganda stunts and don’t want to make real concessions. As a result, despite economic pressure, Iran remains in its position.
Meanwhile, American allies are also feeling nervous. The Zionist administration, which has always supported strict policies against Iran, is now seeing a change in Trump’s tone shift with concern. The administration’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, responded to Trump’s message by saying, “We cannot trust a new deal with Iran.” The statement reflects confusion even among America’s closest allies over contradictions in Trump’s policy.
There are also insightful departments in the US on this issue. Hard-handed Republicans like Lindsey Graham have opposed negotiations with Iran and call them a dangerous hideaway. Meanwhile, some American politicians argue that continuing the biggest pressure policy will only drive Iran to more aggressive action and should give diplomacy a chance.
The issues remain in this context. Is Trump really seeking a new deal or is he just trying to put pressure on Iran? In recent years, Trump has often been shown to base his policies on short-term personal interests and have little attention to long-term strategies. If he can resolve the Iranian crisis with his favor on a diplomatic show, he will definitely do so, even if it means he has temporarily retreated from his previous position.
However, Iran is no longer the same player in 2015 and is willing to make a contract at any cost. Learning from the past, Tehran is determined to maintain his advantage in any potential negotiations and avoid falling into American diplomatic manipulation. What we are witnessing now is more like a tactical move by Washington than a strategic change. This is unlikely to bring about the outcome Trump wants.