U.S. Sends Mixed Messages to Iran: Policy Incoherence or Negotiation Tactic?
Mehr News Agency, International Desk: 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, conducted amid media silence, primarily focused on exchanging messages and assessing both sides’ readiness to resume diplomatic engagement.
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. A third round is 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 simultaneously imposing new sanctions, insisting on direct talks while indirect negotiations continue, and more—all these are signs of strategic instability and duality in the Trump management’s foreign policy.This article highlights some of these contradictions:
1. Sudden Shift in Stance on Uranium Enrichment
One of the most prominent signs of contradiction in U.S. positions during recent negotiations was the conflicting statements made by “Steve Witkoff,” Trump’s special envoy to the talks, regarding Iran’s right to enrich uranium. Initially, in an interview with Fox News on April 17, he stated that the Trump administration might allow continued uranium enri…The U.S. would agree to Iran enriching uranium up to 3.67%, the level permitted under the JCPOA, provided that Iran guarantees full access for inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).These remarks were interpreted by international media as a sign of adaptability or softening from the Trump administration.
Though, just a few hours later, an official statement released by Vice President Pence’s office and the U.S. National Security Council indicated a fully different stance.The statement explicitly emphasized that no uranium enrichment on Iranian soil is acceptable and that the U.S. would only agree to a deal if iran dismantles it’s entire nuclear infrastructure. The use of the term “Trump deal” in this statement pointed to 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 attributed this rapid shift in position to internal disagreements—
They attributed internal disputes within the Trump administration.
2. Insistence on Direct Negotiations vs. Iran’s Emphasis on indirect Talks
Another major contradiction in U.S. positions concerns the format of negotiations with Iran. while Wittkopf has repeatedly stated in American media about “initiating direct talks with Iranian officials,” even presenting it as a significant achievement for the new administration, Iranian officials have explicitly denied this claim.
This contradiction not only highlights discrepancies in 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. Trump, who…
The architect of the hardline policy against Iran does not want new negotiations to appear as if the U.S. is retreating from its previous positions. For this reason, some officials in his administration are attempting to frame the dialog in their favor, portraying it as though Iran has been forced into direct negotiations.
3. Imposing new Sanctions Simultaneously with Negotiation Offers
One of the most glaring contradictions observed from the Trump administration in recent weeks is its simultaneous imposition of new sanctions on Iran while proposing negotiations. Although 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 a highly negative political message to the Iranian side.Additionally…During the second round of talks, 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 viewpoint, the new sanctions not only violate the spirit of dialogue and diplomacy but also indicate a lack of genuine will in the White House to reach an operational 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 othre hand, some Trump administration officials have described these sanctions as “a pressure tool to strengthen America’s hand in negotiations.” Though,according to many observers,this justification not only fails to facilitate negotiations but further escalates tensions—especially as Iran has repeatedly stated that talks under sanction pressure are meaningless…Any concession is conditional upon Washington taking confidence-building measures.
As a result, this contradictory approach—simultaneously inviting negotiations while applying 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 through diplomatic channels expressing a desire to reach an agreement with Iran during negotiations, it has simultaneously conveyed conflicting military signals. Such as, 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.Defense Department officials have stated in discussions…The media reported under the headline: “There are no programs for military confrontation with Iran,and the primary objective of military presence is to protect U.S. and allied interests.” This comes amid claims that just days before these statements, U.S. Air Force conducted a joint military exercise with the Zionist regime in a scenario simulating an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. While these messages may appear defensive on the surface, they are fundamentally at odds with diplomatic efforts and ongoing negotiations.
5.Contradictions in Treatment of Dual Nationals
In recent days, several U.S. officials have spoken about their readiness for dialogue,especially regarding dual nationals,describing it as reflecting “humanitarian intent” and “confidence-building measures.” Though, around the same time, the U.S. Department of Justice issued two new indictments against Iranian-American dual nationals—one of which involved accusations of circumventing sanctions—further complicating matters…Iran’s Behavior Exposes U.S. Hypocrisy on Human Rights, Using It Merely as Political Pressure
This contradiction has led to potential discussions about prisoner exchanges, which could have been a practical step toward reducing tensions but rather resulted in further distrust. Tehran has repeatedly emphasized that the U.S. must first demonstrate genuine goodwill on humanitarian issues to pave the way for dialogue in other areas.Such duplicitous behavior has even sparked internal debates within America, as some security factions insist on “maintaining pressure,” while diplomatic efforts strive to create a more constructive space.
Final Remarks
A review of the U.S.’s conduct during negotiations with Iran reveals that Washington’s inconsistent and often contradictory foreign policy has entered an unpredictable phase. The contradictions seen 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 challenging. Tehran pursues negotiations with a conditional approach and careful attention to America’s behavioral signals; in a situation where every positive message is accompanied by contradictory actions, 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—but america’s inconsistent behavior has deepened it further.
Thus, 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.Or else, future negotiations, including the third round in Muscat, will not only fail to yield results but may also lead to wasted time and heightened pessimism—especially at a time when the region is in greater need than ever of genuine de-escalation.
