Will nuclear talks between Washington and Tehran resume?
Amid escalating nuclear and military tensions between the United States and Iran, U.S. President Donald Trump has denied any direct contact with Tehran or the offering of negotiation proposals. This comes after a series of American strikes targeted sensitive Iranian nuclear facilities.
Conversely, Iran has signaled an openness to return to the
negotiating table, but under stringent conditions, primarily demanding an end
to any future military strikes. In this charged environment, critical questions
emerge: Are Washington and Tehran nearing genuine negotiations, or will the
coming phase witness new escalation disguised as a tactical truce?
U.S. Strikes: Denials of Offers and Escalating Rhetoric
In a clear statement, President Trump denied any direct
communications or negotiation offers extended to Iran following the recent
strikes. He affirmed that the United States had "completely
neutralized" key nuclear facilities in Iran. This sparked widespread
debate within American political and intelligence circles, especially after
conflicting reports suggested a limited impact from these strikes.
Nevertheless, a senior U.S. official revealed that CIA
Director John Ratcliffe had informed Congress members that the strikes
destroyed Iran's sole metal conversion facility. The official indicated that
Iran's nuclear program had suffered a "massive setback that will take
years to recover from." He added that the majority of enriched uranium
might still be buried under the rubble of facilities in Isfahan and Fordow.
Yet, in a notable contradiction, recent satellite imagery
from a prominent satellite technology company showed ongoing repair activities
within the Fordow nuclear complex. This reflects Iran's capacity to absorb the
shock and rapidly rehabilitate its facilities.
Tehran Responds with Conditions, Not Missiles
On the other hand, Tehran attempted to shift the dynamic
politically rather than militarily. Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister announced
that his country is prepared to return to negotiations, but with a clear
condition: the "exclusion of any new American strikes." He clarified
that mediators conveyed Washington’s desire to resume talks, suggesting a
covert diplomatic movement despite the hardened public statements.
Iran, which had internally celebrated a "victory"
after targeting a U.S. base in Al-Adid, now faces a choice: either continue its
mobilizational rhetoric or leverage the strikes within a negotiating context
that could restore its strong presence on the international stage.
Deterrence vs. Internal Change
A political analyst specializing in Middle East affairs
offered a sharp analysis of what he perceives as a strategic shift in the
American approach toward Iran. He stated that the American message is
"direct to the Supreme Leader," and that Trump is deliberately
escalating to compel Tehran to negotiate from a position of defeat, rather than
parity.
The analyst stressed that the Iranian Supreme Leader
continues to use rhetoric like "Death to America and Israel," which
erects barriers to any serious negotiation path. He added, "Trump has set
things straight, nullifying the idea of any dialogue initiative, unless the
Leader admits his loss and begins from a position of defeat."
Coup Prospects and Iranian Internal Concerns
One of the intriguing points raised by the analyst was his
reference to "possibilities of internal movements" within Iran, given
what he described as the "loss of the air defense system" and the
internal exposure to strikes. He spoke of communications between opposition
figures and military leaders within the Iranian army, which could lay the
groundwork for potential defections or even a coup attempt.
The analyst linked the fragility of Iran's response to
repeated airstrikes with a "fear of striking the Basij," the security
apparatus associated with internal suppression. According to him, the regime
hesitated to use the Basij against its own people, fearing that external
strikes could spark an internal revolution.
Intersecting Intelligence and Multinational Operations
The expert believes that the strikes that penetrated deep
into Iranian territory over 12 days were not only a military success but also a
multinational intelligence triumph. He indicated that several nations—though
unnamed—participated in coordination and planning efforts, reflecting a growing
international consensus on preventing Iran from restoring its nuclear
capabilities.
He also emphasized that Iran's current options are limited:
either accept a change in its nuclear and political behavior or face a
"regime change from within" scenario, which could be indirectly
supported by Western powers.
Arab States' Stance: Between Bet and Apprehension
In his analysis of Arab countries' positions, the expert
noted that most nations in the region can no longer tolerate Iran's
"hardline policies" and are increasingly focusing on economic and
technological development. This makes them willing to support any action that
deters Iran from enriching uranium or destabilizing regional security.
He cautioned against a loss of Arab trust in the United
States if there isn't a long-term American commitment, advocating for a
stability model similar to what occurred in Japan and South Korea after World
War II.
Upcoming Scenarios: Negotiation or Regime Change?
The analyst believes that the next six months will be
crucial in determining the trajectory of relations between Tehran and
Washington. If Iran accepts negotiations under new conditions, diplomatic
channels might reopen. However, if it continues to prevaricate, the likely
scenario is a "shift toward overthrowing the regime from within,"
supported by widespread popular backing, which the expert estimates to exceed
70% of Iranians.
He points out that "the issue is no longer just about
enrichment; it also concerns the export of the Iranian revolution and the
expansion of Tehran's influence through its armed proxies, which Washington and
Arab and regional capitals reject."
A Critical Junction and Volatile Landscape
Amid conflicting statements and divergent positions between
Washington and Tehran, the path to negotiation remains fraught with risks,
especially as each party seeks to impose its conditions from a position of
strength. While Iran hints at negotiation conditions, Washington raises the bar
for demands and deterrence, making any future negotiating table—should it
convene—a minefield laden with the past and present.
As the coming months unfold, the most critical reality remains that the Middle East has entered a new phase of conflict, where military and diplomatic aspects intertwine, and equations are drawn with the most precise political and intelligence calculations.
