Decoding the White House’s Message to Iran: A Real Change or Diplomatic Deceit?

The new remarks by Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy, indicate the U.S.'s inclination to negotiate with Iran without military attacks, but many ambiguities still remain. Trump’s strategy focuses on creating a new deal with Iran that seems different but is, in reality, a continuation of the policy of maximum pressure.

Nournews: In his recent remarks, Steve Witkoff, Trump’s envoy for Middle Eastern affairs, has stated that the Trump administration seeks to reach a diplomatic agreement with Iran. He has pointed to several key issues in his remarks:

First, Trump’s letter to Iran has suggested clearing up misunderstandings and creating a new nuclear fact-checking mechanism.

Second, The U.S. does not threaten Iran with military attacks, but in order to prevent war, has the military in mind.

Third, Witkoff claimed that Iran has made contact with Washington through unofficial channels.

Although these remarks indicate changes in Washington’s tone, they have also created new ambiguities that need attention.

In his first term, Trump sought to force Tehran to accept stricter conditions than the JCPOA by withdrawing from the agreement and imposing extended sanctions on Iran. However, not only did the strategy fail, but Iran also demonstrated that it would not succumb to unilateral pressure by increasing its level of uranium enrichment and expanding its nuclear program.

Now, after his return to the White House, Trump is trying to test a new path. Trump is neither seeking to repeat Obama’s negotiation experience, nor is he inclined to advance a policy of interaction without pressure, as Biden would have done. Trump’s strategy is to reach a deal under pressure, in which Iran offers more concessions while the U.S. is simultaneously ready to ease sanctions.

The trend shows shifts in approach, but it is not significantly different from the policy of maximum pressure in reality, as pressure remains the primary tool for negotiation.

The "NAFTA 2.0" Model in Foreign Policy: Is Trump Seeking a Deal in His Own Name?

Another possibility is that Trump is striving for an agreement that, in essence, does not differ significantly from the JCPOA but is formally registered under his name and signature. A similar pattern was observed during his first term when, after withdrawing from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), he replaced it with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). While the new deal had no fundamental differences from its predecessor, it was promoted as a diplomatic success for Trump.

Regarding Iran, the Trump administration might pursue a similar approach—signing a deal resembling the JCPOA with minor formal modifications and presenting it as a political victory. These changes could include: extending nuclear restrictions for a longer period, increasing inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities, and imposing stricter limitations on Iran’s missile program.

In return, Trump may offer sanctions relief, but not all at once—rather as part of a gradual and conditional process.

If such a proposal is put forward, Iran will undoubtedly reject any measures aimed at restricting its missile capabilities. However, Tehran has previously demonstrated its willingness to negotiate in order to prove its goodwill and commitment to a peaceful nuclear program—provided it receives meaningful concessions, including the complete removal of secondary sanctions, reintegration into the global banking system, and guarantees that the U.S. will not withdraw from the deal again.

Is an Agreement Possible?

Trump’s strategy toward Iran, despite a shift in rhetoric, remains fundamentally based on pressure. The call for a new verification mechanism could be either an attempt to impose further restrictions on Iran or a way to rebrand a modified version of the JCPOA under a new name. In either case, Iran is unlikely to enter such a process unless it receives substantial incentives.

The fate of this approach depends on two key factors: first, Trump's willingness to offer real and not just superficial concessions; and second, Iran's ability to withstand economic pressure and leverage its bargaining power. If Tehran perceives the negotiation terms as imbalanced, it will likely continue its path of resistance. However, if Washington is prepared to offer tangible incentives, as Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has stated, a return to diplomacy remains possible.