Claims circulated by Zionist media regarding the terms of a potential agreement with Iran, raised simultaneously with reports about the possible resumption of Tehran–Washington talks, amount to pre-emptive psychological pressure. These conditions — including a complete halt to enrichment, closure of facilities, restrictions on missile capabilities, and the severing of support for the “Axis of Resistance” — effectively destroy any prospect for dialogue before it can take shape. This approach reflects not a strategic divergence from Washington but a coordinated tactic aimed at imposing paralysis on the negotiation process. Tel Aviv is fully aware that such demands are unattainable, yet they provide the necessary tools to project deadlock and raise the political cost of diplomacy. This time, the aim is not to amend an agreement but to prevent one from emerging at all.
Israel’s influence and America’s test
Historical experience shows that the United States has been heavily influenced by the policies of the Zionist regime toward Iran. From the Obama era through Trump and Biden, whenever negotiations reached a point of progress, they were disrupted by Tel Aviv’s interventions or indirect security pressures. Trump’s decision to leave the negotiating table before the sixth round even began, coinciding with the 12-day war on Gaza, was one clear example of this alignment — a move that structurally reinforced Tehran’s distrust of American goodwill. Iran views the negotiations as a face-to-face contest with a single coalition and considers any distinction between the United States and the Zionist regime largely a matter of media optics. Nevertheless, Washington’s current response to Tel Aviv’s messaging will serve as a key indicator of the independence and rationality of American political judgment.
Iran on two fronts: military readiness and active diplomacy
Iran’s current posture is based on smart deterrence and cautious diplomacy. Tehran neither yields to a climate of threats nor abandons dialogue as a means of securing its rights. While military preparedness remains at its highest level and “the finger is on the trigger,” the clear message is that the window for diplomacy is not closed. Iran believes that maintaining a balance between hard and soft power enables it to manage pressure without leaving the path of engagement. Within this framework, negotiations make sense only for securing nuclear rights and sanctions relief — not for crossing missile or regional red lines. Any attempt to divert the talks into non-nuclear domains will be met with a firm and proportionate response.
Diplomacy or crisis management? Washington’s final test
Now, as officials in both Tehran and Washington speak of efforts to revive channels of dialogue, the US approach to Israel’s narrative-building will be decisive. If the White House resists Tel Aviv’s pressure and preserves diplomacy as a route to de-escalation, it could signal a relative return of rationality in American foreign policy. But silence, acquiescence, or repetition of artificial conditions would demonstrate that Washington remains trapped in the orbit of maximum pressure and the old “good cop, bad cop” dynamic. From Iran’s perspective, this is a test not only of US intentions but of the Western power structure’s ability to manage crises. Failure would once again reduce diplomacy to a disposable and discredited instrument in global public opinion.
NOURNEWS