Ceasefire or deception scenario; What does Trump want?

TEHRAN, Aug. 02 (MNA) – After the cessation of hostilities, the main question is whether Washington is genuinely seeking an end to the crisis with Iran or has once again placed diplomacy at the service of a pressure strategy.

Tehran-Washington relations, full of ups and downs, are at a stage of escalating confrontation, deep mistrust, and the absence of a clear prospect for dialogue. Since the seizure of the spy den (the US embassy in Tehran) at the beginning of the Islamic Revolution's victory, the two countries have had a long experience of successive crises, unfinished negotiations, sanctions, mutual threats, and indirect confrontations. A trajectory that the 2015 nuclear agreement brought close to a path of dialogue for a while, but the US withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018 and the return of the maximum pressure policy destroyed the fragile foundation of trust between the two sides.

In the current situation, the Trump administration's positions oscillate between proposing the possibility of an agreement and threatening severe military attacks, because it has turned diplomacy into a tool dependent on pressure and field calculations. Iran, emphasizing that it has not made a direct request to return to negotiations, also doubts the credibility of Washington's commitments.

The expansion of attacks on American bases, Saudi Arabia's more overt presence in operations against Resistance forces in Iraq, tension in the Red Sea, and the possibility of Egypt being drawn into the crisis indicate that the Tehran-Washington dispute is no longer merely a bilateral conflict and its effects encompass the entire region. Under such circumstances, military costs, pressure on the global economy, concerns about energy security, and the depletion of US weapons stockpiles, simultaneously with the US domestic electoral contests, have made political decision-making more complex and the possibility of reaching a sustainable agreement more remote. In the following text, we will try to address the White House's tools for achieving its potential objectives regarding the Iran file.

The Continuation of Coercive Diplomacy

Donald Trump's recent remarks and positions on Iran show that he pursues diplomacy not as a steady, sustainable path based on mutual trust, but rather as a temporary tool alongside military pressure. Although the 47th President of the United States still speaks of the possibility of reaching an agreement with Tehran and emphasizes that negotiations can still yield results, he simultaneously speaks with harsh rhetoric of very severe bombing of Iran and openly says he has lost his trust in Iranian officials.

He also criticizes the negotiation style of Tehran's representatives, claiming that Iranians spend long hours on issues that, in his view, could be resolved in a short time. This set of statements shows that Trump is not very committed to diplomacy in its conventional sense and only accepts negotiation to the extent that it leads to a quick, favorable result aligned with America's demands. In fact, through these positions, one can discern that for Trump, diplomacy and military action are two complementary tools that, depending on the circumstances, are employed to increase pressure, force Iran to retreat, and impose Washington's desired framework.

The Project of Reordering the Middle East

From a critical perspective on Trump's policy towards Iran, dialogue and the proposal of an agreement were not necessarily a sign of Washington's desire for a lasting resolution of differences, but could be part of a pressure strategy to impose a new balance in the region. In this model, negotiation creates an opportunity to place the other side under economic, security, and psychological pressure while simultaneously raising new demands beyond the nuclear file.

Thus, accepting a specific concession, such as reducing or halting enrichment, is not considered a guarantee for ending the conflict, as the scope of demands can expand to include defensive capability, regional influence, and the orientation of Iran's foreign policy. The history of the unbalanced implementation of the nuclear agreement also reinforces the doubt that the other party's commitments may not be fulfilled in proportion to the concessions given. The result of such a situation is not deeming diplomacy useless, but rather the necessity of redefining it. Negotiation must be formed on the basis of a balance of power, verifiable guarantees, a clear dispute resolution mechanism, and deterrence capability. Otherwise, dialogue may become a tool for the gradual erosion of the country's capacities and the preparation of the ground for subsequent pressures.

Donald Trump's main objective regarding Iran is to quickly achieve an agreement that enables the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the reduction of regional tensions, and a return to dialogue on a comprehensive nuclear deal. Simultaneously, by maintaining a credible threat of returning to "very severe military action," he seeks to compel Iran and mediators to accept the framework desired by America. In this picture, the cessation of attacks is not the abandonment of the military option, but its suspension to test the path of negotiation, and diplomacy is considered not an independent goal, but a mechanism for quickly reaching a practical result. Therefore, from the perspective of the stated positions, Trump shifts between military pressure and dialogue to control the economic and security costs of escalating conflict while preserving America's leverage to achieve its objectives.

Conclusion

The war that started on Feburuary 28 has apparently stopped, but it remains in a situation where historical mistrust, disagreement over the limits of commitments, and the linking of diplomacy with military and regional developments have limited the possibility of Iran and the United States reaching a sustainable agreement.

The stated positions of the second Trump administration show that the proposal of the possibility of negotiation has been pursued simultaneously with the threat of escalating military operations. An approach that undermines the atmosphere of trust necessary for dialogue and affects the security calculations of both sides. In contrast, Tehran's emphasis on the experience of the first Trump administration's withdrawal from the JCPOA and the necessity of obtaining enforceable and verifiable guarantees indicates that any new dialogue without a clear mechanism for implementing commitments and resolving disputes will face serious obstacles.

At the same time, the expansion of tension to Iraq, the Red Sea, Jordan, and other parts of the region has taken the issue beyond the level of bilateral relations and turned it into a matter linked to energy security, global economic stability, and the security arrangement of the region. The human and financial costs of military operations, concern over the depletion of defense stockpiles, and sensitivity to oil prices also affect the decision-making of actors. Nevertheless, negotiation can only contribute to a sustainable reduction of tension when it moves away from the logic of immediate pressure and is shaped on the basis of mutual interests, a specific timetable, practical guarantees, and continuous communication channels.