TEHRAN – When Iran and the United States began new nuclear negotiations earlier this month, the entire region breathed a sigh of relief. West Asia had come close to being drawn into a conflagration after President Donald Trump said he was considering military action against Iran, framing it as support for CIA-backed riots aimed at toppling the government.

 Iranian military officials responded with unusually blunt warnings, telling Trump to show what he had—but also be prepared for a conflict that would not only strike U.S. bases across the region, but also cripple regional infrastructure and disrupt global oil flows.

In a flurry of diplomatic calls, countries across the region urged Iran to give diplomacy with the United States another chance, despite having come under attack by the U.S. and Israel in June 2025, in the middle of the previous round of negotiations. At least two regional states told Tehran that Washington was, this time, serious about reaching a negotiated settlement on Iran’s nuclear program, the Tehran Times understands.

Iran accepted the proposal in line with its long-stated preference for diplomacy over war—and to ensure that, should the regional conflagration it has warned about come to pass, West Asian states would know Tehran had exhausted every effort to avoid it. That included entering talks with a country that had waged war against it and, only weeks earlier, had openly threatened to assassinate its leadership.

Regarding the United States’ decision to re-engage in talks, two main interpretations have emerged.

The first argues that after years of economic pressure, psychological operations, and even military aggression, Trump has finally come to accept that the standoff with Iran has limits, and that that pressure alone would not produce Iranian concessions. Trump may now understands that his most practical option is a nuclear agreement that respects Iran’s core red lines—no ban on uranium enrichment and no negotiations over missile capabilities or regional partnerships—while still extracting terms that go beyond those of the 2015 JCPOA.

The second interpretation suggests that the talks were less a strategic reassessment than a tactical retreat. Trump. In fact, pivoted to negotiations to save face after military officials warned that American forces and assets in the region would be highly vulnerable once Iran began to retaliate, forcing the administration to scrap its attack plans. Rather than seeking a genuine deal, Trump will likely maintain pressure and attempt to topple the Islamic Republic again when a future opportunity arises.

As time passes, it becomes increasingly clear that this second group of observers has probably been more accurate in its analysis. The strongest evidence lies in remarks by U.S. officials—including Trump himself—who have so far only spoken in aspirational terms about the Iran they would like to see, rather than outlining a credible pathway for a diplomatic deal.

Speaking to reporters after a military event in North Carolina on Friday, Trump responded to questions regarding talks with Iran, stating that “regime change”, not an agreement, seems like “the best thing that could happen.”

“For 47 years, they’ve been talking and talking and talking,” he added. Earlier that day, Trump also commented on a U.S. aircraft carrier currently deploying to the Persian Gulf to join other military assets sent there in recent weeks.

“In case we don’t make a deal, we’ll need it,” Trump said. “If we need it, we’ll have it ready.”

Couple these comments with the blatantly shameless remarks made by other U.S. officials—both Democrat and Republican—during the recent Munich Security Conference. 

U.S. Representative and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for instance, stated that the U.S. should forgo further military attacks against Iran and instead utilize increased sanctions to harm the Iranian people, in hopes that a devastated and squeezed society would topple the Islamic Republic for Washington.

“Just weaken their economy… because they do have support in the rural areas… We have to make them feel the pain as well,” the senior Democrat said 

Speaking at the same pub, Republican Senator and Trump ally Lindsey Graham claimed it would be a “disaster” for the U.S. to sign a deal with Iran rather than attacking the country, neglecting to mention that such a move would bring thousands of American soldiers back in coffins.

“It means you can’t rely on America. It means the Western World is full of crap. All they do is talk, and when the rubber meets the road, they don’t do a damn thing,” Graham stated.

Before the first round of nuclear talks took place in Oman on February 6, Hojjatoleslam Seyyed Mahmoud Nabavian, Vice Chairman of the Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, told the Tehran Times that the U.S. has devised various strategies to weaken, contain, and cripple Iran, just as it has for the past four to five decades.

“They imposed an eight-year war upon us in the 1980s, they plotted various coups, they imposed another war in 2025, and they sparked unrest in 1999, 2009, 2022, and most recently, this January. They have also imposed a wide array of extensive and crippling sanctions against us,” he explained.

“While these measures did cause us hardship, their ultimate expectation—that the Iranian nation would be uprooted—was never realized. Similar plots in the future will face the same fate.”