Trump’s letter and statements from his administration, including those from the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and National Security Advisor, all follow a distinct pattern— a strategic confrontation from a position of power. Simply put, the core message of this letter is nothing more than:
"Either comply with my demands willingly, or face severe consequences."
This approach, which is coercive and bullying in nature, is the same model Trump has previously applied to countries such as Canada, Mexico, Denmark, Ukraine, Hamas, Palestine, and Venezuela.
US. Strategy: A Coordinated Game
In the case of Iran, this game has been supported by a series of complementary operations, including:
Verbal, propaganda, and psychological exploitation of events such as the Yemen conflict.
Utilizing media and second-tier Trump administration officials (such as Witkoff) to push this policy forward.
However, the weak political standing and communication skills of these figures often led to clumsy and ineffective execution.
The primary goal of these actions was to create doubt and confusion among Iranian decision-makers, making them more susceptible to U.S. pressure. Secondly, these tactics allowed American officials a chance to shift their rhetoric and retreat honorably if necessary.
Iran’s Response to Trump's Letter
Senior Iranian officials responded decisively to this approach. The Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei explicitly defined Iran’s red lines, while the government also took positions that clearly conveyed its message to Trump.
One of the most striking responses came from Iran’s president, who, in reply to Trump’s threats, boldly stated:
"Let’s see what foolish action you dare to take."
This response sent a clear signal to the US government that threats and pressure would not force Iran into accepting Washington’s conditions. It also demonstrated that American efforts to destabilize Iran’s internal decision-making had failed.
Another Layer of Trump's Message: Playing the "Man of Peace"
Alongside open threats, Trump embedded a secondary and subtler layer into his game. In this part, the tone of his message shifted, attempting to convey:
"It would be better for you to make a deal" and "Trump seeks peace."
This aspect of the message was echoed in statements by U.S. officials, including Witkoff.
Inside Iran, some figures tried to highlight this element of Trump’s message, setting the stage for the so-called "Man of Peace" narrative. However, the key point was that Iran refused to engage in this game on Trump’s terms.
If we were to summarize this game’s essence, it could be expressed in the following phrase:
"Play the role of the Man of Peace, drop the threats, forget the sanctions, engage from a position of mutual respect, and then you’ll find a counterpart to play along with."
Unfolding Future of This Game
The crucial question now is: How will this game progress, and what will be its outcome?
The answer lies in the tactics each side employs moving forward and their ability to use their available tools—both potential and actual—wisely and at the right time.
NOURNEWS