U.S. Sends Mixed Signals to Iran: Policy Discord or Negotiation Tactic?
Mehr News Agency, International Group: In the first weeks of the year 1404 (2025), groundwork was laid for indirect talks between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States. The first round of these negotiations took place on Farvardin 23, 1404 (April 11, 2025) in Muscat, the capital of Oman, mediated by Oman and held unofficially behind closed doors. This meeting, which proceeded under media silence, primarily involved exchanging messages and assessing both sides’ readiness to resume diplomatic efforts.
Subsequently, the second round of talks was held on Farvardin 30, 1404 (april 19, 2025) in Rome, Italy—though still hosted and mediated by Oman. Published reports indicate that the overall atmosphere of the negotiations has been assessed as positive, with a third round expected to take place in Muscat in the coming days. the continuity of these three meetings reflects a slow but steady effort to reopen…
The knots in Tehran-Washington relations are tightening.
However,the positive atmosphere of negotiations has been accompanied by a series of contradictory statements and inconsistent actions from U.S. officials. From sudden shifts in stance regarding Iran’s enrichment rights to concurrently imposing new sanctions, insisting on direct talks while indirect negotiations continue—all these are signs of strategic instability and inconsistency in the Trump administration’s foreign policy. This article highlights some of these contradictions:
1.Sudden Shift in Stance on Uranium Enrichment
One of the most prominent examples of contradiction in U.S. positions during recent negotiations was the conflicting remarks by “Steve Witkoff,” Trump’s special envoy to the talks, regarding Iran’s right to enrich uranium. Initially, during an interview with Fox News on April 17, he stated that the Trump administration might allow continued enrich…Iran agreed to enrich uranium up to 3.67%, the level permitted under the JCPOA, on the condition that Iran guarantees full access for inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These remarks were interpreted in international media as a sign of adaptability or softening from the Trump administration.
Though, just hours later, an official statement released by Vice President Pence’s office and the U.S. National Security Council indicated a completely different stance. The statement explicitly emphasized that no uranium enrichment on Iranian soil is acceptable and that the United States would only agree to a deal if Iran dismantles its entire nuclear infrastructure. The use of the term “Trump deal” in this statement signaled a more aggressive position compared to the JCPOA—the agreement from which Trump withdrew in 2018. This glaring contradiction not only highlights a lack of coherence within America’s new diplomatic team but has also led to severe distrust on the Iranian side. Some analysts attribute this rapid shift in position to internal disagreements…2. Insistence on Direct Negotiations vs. Iran’s Emphasis on Indirect Talks
Another serious contradiction in U.S. positions relates to the format of negotiations with Iran. While [U.S. official] Wittkopf has repeatedly stated in American media about “initiating direct talks with Iranian officials,” even framing it as a major achievement for the new administration, Iranian officials have explicitly denied this claim.
This discrepancy not only highlights conflicting narratives but has also created two entirely different perceptions of diplomatic progress among the public. Washington is attempting to portray these talks as a sign of Iran’s retreat and a victory for its maximum pressure policy.
From experts’ perspectives, this duality in U.S. stances may stem from internal competition within the Trump administration and efforts to manage domestic public opinion…Biden, seen as the architect of a hardline policy against Iran, does not want the new negotiations to appear as though the U.S. is retreating from its previous positions. Because of this very reason, some officials in his administration are attempting to frame the talks in their favor and portray Iran as being compelled to engage in direct negotiations.
3. Imposing New sanctions Simultaneously with Negotiation offers
One of the most notable contradictions observed from the Trump administration in recent weeks has been its simultaneous imposition of new sanctions on Iran while proposing negotiations. Even though U.S.officials have repeatedly expressed readiness to reach a new agreement, on April 9, 2025, the U.S. Treasury Department added several Iranian entities linked to the nuclear industry to its sanctions list. This move came just days before the second round of talks in Rome and sent an extremely negative political message to Tehran. Additionally…during the second round of negotiations,the U.S. imposed a series of oil sanctions against Iran.
This duality in America’s behavior has led many political analysts to view Washington’s foreign policy as lacking coherence and suffering from decision-making crises. From Tehran’s outlook, the new sanctions not only violate the spirit of dialog and diplomacy but also signal a lack of genuine will in the White House to reach a practical agreement. Iranian officials have emphasized that ”the language of threats and sanctions” is incompatible with negotiations and that continuing this approach will weaken the path to dialogue.
On the other hand, some officials in the Trump administration have described these sanctions as “a pressure tool to strengthen America’s hand in negotiations.” however, according to many observers, this justification not only fails to facilitate talks but further escalates tensions—especially since iran has repeatedly stated that negotiations under sanction pressure are meaningless.Any concession is conditional on Washington taking confidence-building measures.
As a result, this contradictory approach—simultaneously inviting negotiations while exerting maximum pressure—has deepened the atmosphere of distrust between the two countries and caused the negotiation process to proceed cautiously and slowly.
4. Contradiction in Security and Military Messaging Toward Iran
While the Trump administration has sent messages expressing a desire to reach an agreement with Iran during negotiations and through its diplomatic representatives, it has simultaneously conveyed conflicting military signals. For example, during indirect talks in rome, the Pentagon announced the redeployment of an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf region. This move was framed as “maintaining deterrence,” but from Iran’s perspective—and that of many regional observers—it was seen as an implicit threat and a show of force.
On the other hand,some U.S. Defence Department officials have stated in discussions…The media reported with the headline: “There are no programs for military confrontation with Iran, and the primary objective of military presence is to protect American and allied interests.” This comes at a time when it was claimed that just days before these statements, U.S. air forces had conducted joint military exercises with the Zionist regime in a scenario simulating attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities. While these messages may appear defensive in nature, they are fundamentally at odds with diplomatic efforts and existing agreements.
4. Contradictions in Treatment of Dual nationals
In recent days leading up to Ramadan, several U.S. officials spoke about Washington’s readiness for dialogue regarding the issue of dual nationals—even describing it as reflecting “humanitarian intentions” and “confidence-building measures.” Simultaneously occurring, around the same time, the U.S. Department of Justice issued two new indictments against Iranian-American dual nationals, one of which involved accusations related to circumventing sanctions. From…Iran’s foreign Ministry stated that such duplicitous behavior demonstrates that the U.S. does not base its human rights policies on humanitarian principles, but rather exploits them solely as a tool for political pressure.
This contradiction has led to potential discussions about prisoner exchanges,which could have been an operational factor in reducing tensions but instead resulted in a lack of trust on both sides. Tehran has repeatedly emphasized that the U.S. must first demonstrate genuine goodwill in humanitarian issues to pave the way for dialogue in other areas. Such hypocritical conduct has even sparked internal debates within America, as some security factions argue for “maintaining pressure,” while diplomatic efforts seek to create a more constructive environment.Farjam Sokhan
A review of the U.S.’s stance and actions during negotiations with Iran reveals that Washington’s engagement with a contradictory and inconsistent foreign policy has further complicated matters. The contradictions observed in Europe’s approach…NEOM, the form of negotiations, the imposition of sanctions, security conduct, and even the issue of dual-national prisoners—all indicate that there is no clear consensus among U.S. decision-making bodies or even within Trump’s team.
From Iran’s perspective, such behavior not only sends contradictory messages but also makes confidence-building more arduous. Tehran pursues negotiations with a conditional approach and careful attention to behavioral signals from the U.S.; in a situation where every positive message is accompanied by a contradictory action, the likelihood of reaching an agreement diminishes. This current atmosphere of mutual distrust is the natural result of years of confrontation and bitter experiences in dealing with one another—yet America’s inconsistent behavior has deepened it further.
Therefore, if the Trump administration seeks to reach a new and lasting agreement with Iran, it must first restore coherence in its own policies. Sending clear, unified, and consistent messages is a prerequisite for any diplomatic progress.Otherwise, future negotiations, including the third round in Muscat, will not only fail to yield results but may also lead to wasted time and increased skepticism—especially at a time when the region is in greater need than ever of genuine de-escalation.
