Both War and Negotiation
Both War and Negotiation
Hamid Aboutalebi, the political deputy of the president’s office during Rouhani’s era, believes that in response to the statements of Trump’s Middle East representative, Vitkaf, a new path seems to have begun in Iran-U.S. relations.
In an article titled ‘Iran and America: Hope for a New Path,’ he believes that in 2025, Iran and the U.S. are starting a new approach for negotiation and resolving disputes.
Our former diplomat, under the topic of America’s dual-layered message structure, says that despite the apparent differences in messages and promotional symbols from each side, this approach focuses on dialogue and peace.
Aboutalebi explained that Iran should adopt a combative approach to interact with the U.S., while the U.S. should set respect and peace as its symbols.
The political deputy of the president’s office during Rouhani’s era further mentioned that at the start of the new year, especially during Nowruz, Iran’s foreign minister interpreted Trump’s messages and announced that they would be responded to.
In contrast, Trump’s representative announced America’s readiness for negotiation and respect for Iranians.
The structure of the messages from both sides indicates different approaches, but both are seeking interaction and reducing tensions.
Aboutalebi believes that now is the time for these communications to become more serious and continuous, moving towards direct and comprehensive negotiations, not just seeking promotional and theatrical statements.
The Strategy of Ambiguity and Two Parallel Options
While Hamid Aboutalebi senses diplomacy and negotiation with Iran from Steve Vitkaf’s positions, Marco Rubio, the U.S. Secretary of State, warned in a radio interview about the possibility of military action against Iran.
He emphasized that the U.S. is ready to take military action against Iran if necessary to prevent this country from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Rubio also added that the U.S. considers solving issues diplomatically a priority, but will also consider the military option if necessary.
Mike Waltz, Trump’s national security advisor, also in his latest remarks, referring to the continued attacks by Houthi forces on Israel, emphasized that the United States has taken stricter measures and if Iran does not completely abandon its nuclear program, the military option will be used.
Simultaneously, the U.S. Department of Defense announced plans to send a second aircraft carrier to the region.
This action is taking place while U.S. airstrikes on Yemen continue.
The Pentagon has threatened Iran’s military facilities and announced that it might undertake serious military actions if tensions escalate.
Abbas Araghchi also announced in response to these movements that Iran is ready to defend itself but is not seeking war.
The leader of the Islamic Republic also warned in his recent speeches that if the U.S. makes a mistake, Iran will give a decisive and serious response.
Thus, the situation in the region is extremely complex and sensitive, and any option might occur in the coming days.
Negotiation or Militarism: The Complex Duality of U.S. Policy Towards Iran
Considering the above points and analyzing recent developments in Iran-U.S. relations, contrary to what Hamid Aboutalebi deduces from Steve Vitkaf’s statements, the year 2025 might not be a year of negotiation and diplomacy but rather a period full of ambiguity and possibilities regarding the available options.
Rouhani’s political advisor, in response to Vitkaf’s remarks, believes that the two countries are entering a new path based on dialogue and resolving disputes.
However, in this discussion, it should be noted that simultaneously with Vitkaf’s statements about diplomacy, other American officials like Marco Rubio and Mike Waltz clearly emphasize the war option.
These contradictions in U.S. policies indicate the implementation of an ambiguity strategy that simultaneously places both negotiation and war options on the agenda.
A strategy aimed at challenging Iran from both sides: on one hand, trying to encourage Tehran to diplomacy through statements like those made by Vitkaf, and on the other hand, preparing for the military option if necessary.
This method, based on creating confusion in Tehran’s decision-making, could lead Iran to mistakenly think that only negotiation is on the agenda, and since Iran is concerned about military threat pressures, it might move towards negotiation. However, if we closely observe the positions of the system’s leader and Iran’s foreign minister, it seems that Iran is well aware of this strategy and considers both options.
The leader of the Islamic Republic emphasized in his recent speeches that if the U.S. makes a wrong move, Iran will have a decisive reaction.
Iran’s foreign minister also clarified that Iran is ready to defend itself but is not seeking war.
These positions indicate that Tehran is prepared for both scenarios of negotiation and war, and it seems that Tehran, especially at this time, will base its decisions on U.S. behavior.
This situation clearly indicates the existence of an ambiguity strategy employed by the U.S.
On one hand, by talking about negotiation and diplomacy, Washington tries to push Tehran towards negotiations, and on the other hand, by threatening military action, it attempts to dissuade Iran from accepting diplomatic options, thus keeping both options on the table.
It seems that the ultimate goal is for Iran to come to negotiations out of fear of war, and consequently, Washington, using these complex tactics, tries to control and guide the negotiation process.
Ultimately, what emerges from this situation is that Iran must adopt its actions in a highly coordinated and intelligent manner by carefully analyzing all aspects of this strategy, not only to avoid the traps of U.S. military threats but also to make the most of diplomatic capacities.
Iran’s Effort to Buy Time: Indirect Diplomacy Against Trump’s Two-Month Deadline
Despite what has been said, if we examine Hamid Aboutalebi’s analysis from another perspective, it seems that under recent developments and a close look at the new conditions of relations with the U.S., Tehran is seeking a complex and intelligent solution to manage the existing crisis.
While Iran tries to reduce pressures through negotiation and utilizing indirect channels and multiple mediators, it appears that Tehran’s intended approach does not align much with the existing realities of U.S. policy, especially during Trump’s second presidency and Washington’s harsh and uncompromising stances on nuclear, missile, and regional issues.
In this regard, Iran intends, considering the limited time remaining until the end of the two-month deadline, which means both pressure on Tehran from Donald Trump and the potential threat of activating the snapback mechanism by Europeans, to create a new space for itself through indirect negotiations and even some temporary and minor concessions.
Tehran’s goal is to create some form of moderation for the Trump administration and pave the way for reducing tensions.
However, it should be noted that Trump’s second administration strongly emphasizes its national security interests and priorities, and especially in the nuclear, missile, and regional arenas, it does not accept many of Iran’s demands that contradict America’s uncompromising stance.
On the other hand, the limited and short two-month period practically prevents Tehran from being able to take more diplomatic initiative and effectively utilize indirect negotiations for bargaining on sensitive issues.
This short time, coinciding with the threat of activating the snapback mechanism on the European agenda, further limits Iran’s diplomatic space.
Ultimately, considering the unified and strict approach of the U.S., especially on issues like nuclear and regional matters, there is a possibility that Iran’s efforts towards indirect negotiations and buying time will not lead to the desired outcome.
This is especially because the current Trump administration is fully aligned with its strict foreign policy approaches, which might face failure.