Nournews: In an interview with Fox News, Steve Witkoff stated that “Trump is surprised by the Iranians’ resistance,” expressing astonishment at their refusal to yield. This short sentence carries a strategic message. If the U.S. president is surprised by Iran’s steadfastness, it means the initial assessment behind the pressure policy was based on a flawed assumption.
Trump’s scenario was built on the belief that maximum pressure, large-scale military deployment to the region, military threats, and intensified sanctions would ultimately force Iran to retreat. Now, the admission by his special envoy effectively exposes this design and reveals its ineffectiveness. When the architect of pressure speaks of its failure, he effectively burns a project built on the “war or surrender” dichotomy.
Negotiation for Negotiation: A Tool of Attrition
Over the past two decades, the dominant Western approach to the nuclear file has been based on “negotiation for negotiation” and buying time— a process designed, through persistent sanctions and threatening rhetoric, to erode Iran economically and socially. Today, the use of terms such as “deadline” or “limited strike” can also be analyzed within this framework.
However, the current conditions differ from the past in that Tehran, while emphasizing the principle of negotiation, will not be trapped in fruitless processes. The experience of U.S. violations of commitments showed that negotiation without practical guarantees merely reproduces the same attritional cycle. Witkoff’s admission also confirms that pressure has not only failed but has challenged the other side’s calculations.
Rights That Must Be Tangible
Iran’s strategy is based on the principle that negotiation is a tool for realizing rights. These rights are enshrined in the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the JCPOA, including the right to enrichment, access to peaceful nuclear technology, and the lifting of sanctions with credible guarantees.
Negotiations are meaningful only when the realization of these rights is foreseeable and attainable in the near term. If achievements are deferred to an uncertain future, continuing the process is unjustifiable. Now the ball is in the U.S. court to show whether it will move away from the burned pressure scenario or continue to rely on the same flawed calculations.
Active Deterrence: A Complement to Diplomacy
Trump’s surprise at Iran’s resistance conveys another message: maximum pressure has not only been ineffective but has also strengthened internal cohesion and increased Iran’s reliance on its deterrent capabilities. Tehran is pursuing diplomacy while fully prepared for any scenario and emphasizes that any miscalculation could have consequences beyond initial expectations.
In this environment, scenarios such as a “limited strike” are less tools for extracting concessions than risks that could trigger widespread regional instability and severe economic consequences. The choice before Washington is clear: respect Iran’s rights and move toward a balanced agreement, or insist on a model whose inefficiency has been acknowledged by a senior American official.