The current pattern of US behavior toward Iran cannot be explained by the label of “contradictory messaging.” What is unfolding is a strategy of compound pressure—one in which diplomacy, military threats, psychological operations and force posture are employed simultaneously within a cognitive warfare setting. On the one hand, Washington speaks of readiness for fair negotiations limited to the nuclear issue; on the other, it increases its military presence in the region, issues explicit threats from senior officials, and intensifies the battle of narratives. This combination conveys a single message: negotiation is desirable, but only under pressure.

In this context, the apparent contradiction in messages serves an instrumental purpose. The signal of negotiation keeps the diplomatic channel open and manages global public opinion, while the signal of threat is designed to increase bargaining leverage. The objective is to draw Iran to the negotiating table under conditions of perceptual imbalance—where the cost of “no deal” is made to appear higher than the cost of a “limited deal.” At the same time, the United States seeks to reassure its regional allies that the hard option has not been taken off the table.

Against this backdrop, Israel’s role is a decisive variable in steepening the trajectory of tension. Even at times when Israel’s public rhetoric appears muted, this does not imply withdrawal from the arena. Tel Aviv’s behavioral pattern in recent years shows a preference, at certain critical junctures, for substituting informational and operational influence for overt media positioning. From the perspective of Iranian decision-makers, Israel is not only active in covert and disruptive actions, but also plays a role at the level of policymaking in Washington by encouraging a more hardline approach toward Iran.

A key difference lies in the mismatch between the scope of Israel’s demands and the scope of negotiations publicly signaled by the United States. While Washington sends signals focused on nuclear talks, Israeli media and policy circles emphasize expanding the agenda to include Iran’s missile program and regional policies. This should be understood as an effort to “raise the ceiling of negotiations.” In bargaining logic, the broader the range of issues, the higher the cost of agreement and the greater the likelihood of negotiation failure.