Iran sees US actions not rhetoric as key to new talks

Iran underscores that the criterion determining Tehran’s path in reviving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and lifting sanctions will be the actions of the United States, rather than its seemingly conciliatory rhetoric. The recent US decision not to renew Iraq’s sanctions waiver is perceived within Iran as another hostile act aimed solely at intensifying “maximum pressure” on Iran’s economy.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has initiated stricter enforcement of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Last Wednesday, hours before meeting Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of the Israeli regime, in Washington, Trump signed an executive order directing government agencies to escalate the “maximum pressure” policy against Iran. During the signing, Trump expressed hope that using these sanctions would prove unnecessary and that both sides could reach an agreement.  
Nearly a month after issuing the order, Trump continues to take contradictory stances towards Iran — fluctuating between expressing a willingness to negotiate and claiming to have sent a letter to Iran’s Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei while simultaneously intensifying maximum pressure. A US State Department spokesperson has stated that the Trump administration terminated Iraq’s waiver to purchase electricity from Iran. The waiver, part of the “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran, had allowed Iraq to procure a portion of its electricity from Iran.  
According to Reuters, the US official asserted that the Trump administration’s policy is to deny Iran any degree of economic relief. The official claimed the goal of strict enforcement is to end Iran’s alleged “nuclear threat,” curb its ballistic missile program, and alter its regional policies.  
Trump appears intent on achieving results through “maximum pressure” during his second term — a policy he initially pursued by withdrawing from the nuclear deal, called the JCPOA. Tensions between the two sides have significantly worsened since Trump unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear deal in 2018. Following the withdrawal, the Trump administration launched a “maximum pressure” campaign aimed at crippling Iran’s economy through severe sanctions targeting its oil exports, banking sector, and other critical industries.
US officials openly admitted that the policy was designed to weaken Iran economically and politically.
Trump’s advisors argue that the first-term pressure strategy lacked sufficient time to yield outcomes. As Iran, in response to the US pressure policy, progressively reduced its compliance with JCPOA commitments while maintaining that its nuclear program remains peaceful, many officials from the previous Biden administration — contrary to his supporters — contend that US pressure failed to diminish Iran’s nuclear capabilities and even enhanced their scope and sophistication. However, Trump’s approach towards Iran has seen little substantive change over four years, with only minor stylistic adjustments.  
The new US administration aims to coerce Iran into negotiations using tools such as “imposing economic isolation, reducing Iran’s oil exports to zero, and effectively blocking Iran’s economic and trade relations with other countries.” Though Trump has repeatedly cited preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons as his red line, his executive order signals openness to negotiating with Tehran on both nuclear and non-nuclear issues.  
Many experts monitoring US-Iran relations remain uncertain about what alternative to a negotiated agreement Trump envisions. However, during a recent Fox Business interview, Trump hinted at his administration’s roadmap: Iran must either agree to terms or face a “different alternative” — a statement some interpreted as an implicit threat of military action.  
Hours after Trump’s remarks, which included claims of having written to Iran’s leaders and readiness for a deal, a White House National Security Council spokesperson echoed the adversarial tone, stating, As President Trump has made clear, Iran can be dealt with militarily or through agreement.

Domino effect of terminating waivers  

The expiration of Iraq’s energy waiver on March 8, marked another step in the US pressure campaign. The waiver, first granted in 2018 under Trump and extended under Biden, allowed Iraq to import Iranian energy while both administrations urged Baghdad to reduce reliance on Iran. A State Department spokesperson reiterated this demand, urging Iraq “to eliminate its dependence on Iranian sources of energy as soon as possible” and labeling Iran an “unreliable energy supplier.” Tommy Bruce, the spokesperson, added that the administration is reviewing all existing sanctions exemptions related to Iran.  
Informed sources told Reuters that the US leveraged the waiver review to pressure Iraq into permitting Kurdish crude oil exports via Turkey — a move aimed at boosting global supply, stabilizing prices, and creating more space to curb Iranian oil exports. However, Iraq’s negotiations with the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region over resuming oil exports remain fraught.  
The 2011 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) imposed sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank, though exemptions were granted to countries significantly reducing Iranian oil imports or when US national security interests prevailed.  
Iraq has long been vulnerable to disruptions in electricity imports from Iran (approximately 1.2 gigawatts) and gas imports enabling an additional 8.8 gigawatts of domestic power generation. When Trump reluctantly granted Iraq sanctions waivers during his first term, these imports accounted for 40% of Iraq’s peak electricity production.  
Just days before the revocation of Iraq’s sanctions waiver, the Washington Institute published a report stating that Trump’s recently signed executive order explicitly mandates that ‘the Secretary of State shall amend or revoke sanctions waivers, particularly those providing any degree of economic or financial relief to Iran.’
The author of the report argued that revoking Iraq’s sanctions waiver should be seen as part of Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran, claiming that the move aims to push Iraq toward energy independence and away from reliance on Iran. The analysis further asserted that the threat of ending Iraq’s waiver now forces Baghdad, for the first time, to urgently seek alternatives to Iranian energy and accelerate its plans to import electricity from Saudi Arabia.

The decision was “regrettable,” Farhad Alaaldin, foreign affairs advisor to Iraq’s Prime Minister, said Sunday. “As a strategic partner, Iraq expected the US authorities to recognize this partnership, particularly since Iraq’s electricity transactions have always been transparent and fully compliant with sanctions regulations.” “Anticipating this outcome, the Iraqi government pro-actively implemented alternative measures to ensure stable electricity supply and minimize potential disruptions,” Alaaldin said, citing intensified maintenance of existing power stations and accelerated renewable energy projects. The chairman of the Iraqi parliament’s finance committee warned that any move by Washington to restrict power imports from Iran would cause Iraq’s electrical grid to collapse. Iraq currently relies on natural gas for approximately 80% of its electricity generation, leaving its power grid deeply dependent on Iranian energy imports. This dependency was formalized in July 2022 when the two nations signed a five-year bilateral agreement, under which Iraq secured 400 megawatts of electricity daily from Iran. Building on this energy partnership, a March 2024 deal expanded Iranian gas imports to 50 million cubic meters per day — a volume estimated at $6 billion annually — to address Iraq’s chronic power shortages. Meanwhile, Iran slammed the US move as extremely deplorable.” Foreign Minister Abbas said that the US administration has decided to target the innocent people of Iraq “by attempting to deprive them of access to basic services such as electricity, especially ahead of the coming hot months of the year.”

Tehran’s response
The return of Trump to the White House, marked by a strict enforcement of the “maximum pressure” policy, has elicited a reciprocal reaction from Iran — despite his altered tone expressing willingness to negotiate and reach an agreement with Tehran. Iran emphasizes that the trajectory of its actions regarding the revival of the nuclear deal and sanctions relief will be determined by the conduct of the United States, not its seemingly eloquent rhetoric. The deal, reached in 2015, required Iran to implement confidence-building measures to limit its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. In the latest development, the US decision not to extend Iraq’s sanction waivers has been interpreted within Iran as another hostile move with a singular aim: intensifying pressure on Iran’s economy.
While the Trump administration appears to be considering intermediaries like Russia to break the current deadlock in negotiations with Tehran, these mediation efforts will lead nowhere. This is due to the White House’s daily escalation of pressure — adding new layers to the “domino effect” against Iran — and its continuous reinforcement of the wall of distrust between Tehran and Washington. Currently, Iran’s stance, both in official statements and in discussions with representatives of countries expressing interest in mediating between Tehran and Washington, remains unambiguous: Tehran will not yield to direct negotiations under maximum pressure with a government that insists on a language of coercion and imposing its will.

The full article first appeared in Persian on IRNA.