Despite a stream of statements from Iranian officials under President Masoud Pezeshkian — particularly from Abbas Araghchi and Javad Zarif — emphasizing the necessity of diplomacy and urging Trump to abandon his "maximum pressure" strategy, a starkly different tone emerged from Iran’s security establishment.
Major General Majid Khademi, head of the Intelligence Protection Organization of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), warned that any threat to Iran’s national interests would be met with a reciprocal global response.
He dismissed negotiations with Washington as a "red line" and asserted that if the United States attempted any hostile action, Iran would respond decisively and firmly.
This statement aligned with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s outright rejection of negotiations with Washington, highlighting internal divisions in Iran.
Some factions argue that Iran should not prematurely foreclose diplomatic avenues, seeing Khamenei’s remarks as tactical rather than strategic.
However, hardline Iranian media interpreted his stance as final and unequivocal.
Given Khamenei’s constitutional and de facto authority over foreign policy, his position carries significant weight, particularly concerning negotiations with Washington and the nuclear file.
During the final days of President Joe Biden’s administration, US intelligence agencies reportedly assessed that Israel was considering major strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. The expectation was that Israel would pressure the returning Trump administration to support such an operation.
On the Iranian side, the commander of the IRGC’s naval forces threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz in response to Trump’s hostile measures, including oil export restrictions and intensified sanctions.
However, he later backtracked, stating that while Iran had the military capability to shut down the strait, it would not do so as long as it continued to rely on it for its own economic needs.
Iran is unlikely to close the strait, facilitating the transit of approximately 40 percent of global oil exports, including vital shipments to China, one of Iran’s key strategic partners.
Instead, these statements serve as a pressure tactic. Notably, this is the first time Iran has invoked the Strait of Hormuz since the escalation of Israel’s war on Gaza and the subsequent Houthi disruptions in the Red Sea, shifting the focus of maritime tensions away from the Persian Gulf.
Iran had sought to leverage the Gaza war to bolster its "Axis of Resistance" narrative and gain regional and international advantages.
However, the war ultimately turned against Iran’s interests. What began as the Al-Aqsa Flood culminated in significant losses for Iran’s regional influence, including the political and military weakening of its key allies — Bashar Al-Assad’s regime in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza.
Iran's nuclear programme: A last card
Amid these challenges, Iran’s nuclear programme remains its most significant leverage in countering Western pressure.
Over the past year, Iran has faced a series of setbacks, including the death of its president in a helicopter crash and two Israeli missile strikes that crippled some of its most advanced air defence and missile systems.
With its regional allies weakened, Iran sees its nuclear programme as the last major card it can play in negotiations with the West.
As of late 2024, Iran was enriching approximately seven kilograms of uranium to 60 percent purity per month — just shy of weapons-grade levels. If further enriched, this stockpile could yield nearly two nuclear bombs annually.
Moreover, Iran is now installing more advanced centrifuges, some of which are fed higher-enriched uranium.
Rafael Grossi, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), warned that Iran’s enrichment capacity has increased sevenfold, with no plausible civilian justification for such production levels.
Trump has long viewed economic pressure as a crucial negotiating tool. By signing a memorandum to enforce the "maximum pressure" campaign, he hoped to secure a "credible nuclear peace agreement."
The reimposition of UN sanctions through the "snapback" mechanism remains a key threat, allowing Washington or European signatories of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to reinstate sanctions should Iran violate the accord.
At the same time, Iran is wary of Trump’s potential use of the Abraham Accords to isolate Tehran further economically and diplomatically.
More critically, Tehran fears that Trump might, at some stage, endorse an Israeli military strike against Iran. If negotiations fail, the key question becomes how likely the US support for an Israeli attack on Iran would be.
Iran at crossroads
Iran seeks negotiations not as a solution to its fundamental disputes with Washington — disputes it views as structural and irreconcilable — but as a means of managing conflict.
Tehran sees diplomacy as a tactical tool to navigate economic hardships and, more importantly, to prevent a potential US or Israeli military strike aimed at regime change.
Iranian elites believe Washington’s ultimate negotiation goal is to tighten economic restrictions and containment efforts against Tehran.
This places Iran at a crossroads between two potential outcomes.
A diplomatic breakthrough with Trump would bring economic relief by removing sanctions, allowing Iranian oil exports to rise significantly and easing domestic economic pressures.
Such an agreement could shift Washington’s approach from sanctions to diplomatic engagement, but it would also provoke opposition from Russia and Israel. Moscow sees any Iranian rapprochement with the West as a threat to its influence in the Middle East, while Israel would actively seek to undermine any deal.
On the other hand, if negotiations collapse, the diplomatic track would be permanently closed, and the "snapback" mechanism would be fully reactivated, reinstating sweeping UN sanctions.
This would escalate tensions into a more dangerous phase, with coercive measures replacing diplomacy. A Western-led regional coalition could emerge against Iran, and the prospect of a US-backed Israeli military operation would become increasingly plausible.
Iran will likely attempt to prolong negotiations between these scenarios to solidify its international standing and mitigate internal economic pressures.
While economic sanctions are a serious concern, Iran’s primary motivation for seeking talks with Trump is to safeguard the survival of its regime.
Rather than resolving its disputes with Washington, Iran aims to use negotiations as a buffer against external threats, ensuring the continuity of the Islamic Republic’s ruling establishment.
*The writer is an expert on Iranian affairs.
** The article is published in collaboration and with permission from the Independent Arabia newspaper.
Short link: