Here we go again. Trump announces "very good and productive conversations" with Iran, and twenty-four hours later, a senior Iranian foreign ministry official tempers expectations: "we have received points from the United States through mediators and they are under review." Translation: we're not talking to each other, we're passing notes through third parties.
We've seen this diplomatic choreography before. In 2018, in 2020, in 2024. Always the same script: "encouraging signals," "possible openings," "messages transmitted through intermediaries." And in the end? Nothing. Or rather: lots of media noise to maintain the illusion that something is moving.
The Theater of Intentions
Let's coldly analyze what happened yesterday. Trump, faithful to his method, oversells reality. Message exchanges through mediators become "conversations." An exploratory process becomes "very productive." The man knows that financial markets and public opinion react to words as much as to facts.
On the Iranian side, the reaction is equally calculated. Read more: breaking analysis spies Read more: breaking trumps america Confirming receipt of American "points" without mentioning negotiations sends a signal to Washington while saving face before domestic opinion. Tehran cannot afford to appear as the supplicant, especially after months of tensions.
According to the New York Times and CBS News, this sequence is part of an attempt at "de-escalation." But what escalation are we talking about exactly? American economic sanctions haven't budged. Iran's nuclear program continues. Regional tensions persist. Where is this escalation that needs defusing?
The Art of Saying Nothing While Talking a Lot
What's striking about this affair is the disproportion between media hype and actual substance. "Messages transmitted through mediators" happen constantly in diplomacy. It's even the norm when two countries have no official relations. But transforming this into a "potential diplomatic breakthrough" amounts to information manipulation.
Trump gains an image as a president capable of dialogue with America's "enemies." Iran gains implicit recognition of its status as an indispensable interlocutor. The media gain catchy headlines. Everyone's happy, except citizens who would like to understand what's really happening.
Because the reality is more prosaic. These message exchanges have existed for years, through Switzerland, Oman, or other countries. They essentially serve to avoid misunderstandings that could escalate into armed conflict. It's crisis management, not transformative diplomacy.
The Real Stakes Hidden
Behind this diplomatic agitation lie more down-to-earth calculations. Trump, in his second term, seeks a foreign policy "legacy." After the relative failure of his negotiations with North Korea, Iran represents an opportunity to make history. But he needs rapid and spectacular results, which Iranian diplomacy cannot offer.
Iran, for its part, plays for time. The regime knows that American administrations come and go, but the Islamic Republic remains. Why take risks with Trump when you can wait to see who succeeds him? Especially since sanctions, despite their impact, haven't caused the economic collapse Washington hoped for.
This Iranian waiting strategy explains why these diplomatic "openings" never lead anywhere. Tehran gives just enough signals to maintain American hope, without ever engaging in a process that would force substantial concessions.
The Illusion of Momentum
Most troubling in this sequence is how easily observers fall into the trap of "diplomatic momentum." As soon as an American official and an Iranian official pronounce the word "dialogue" in the same week, suddenly we're talking about a "window of opportunity."
This approach reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the American-Iranian conflict. It's not a misunderstanding that a good conversation could resolve, but a deep geostrategic confrontation. The United States wants to maintain its regional hegemony in the Middle East. Iran wants to contest it. These objectives are inherently irreconcilable.
Yesterday's "almost-negotiations" won't change this equation. They mainly serve to give the illusion that diplomacy works, when it's merely managing a status quo that nobody really wants to challenge.
In six months, we'll get the same show: "encouraging signals," "messages through intermediaries," and learned analyses about "dialogue prospects." Meanwhile, the real questions - sanctions, nuclear issues, regional influence - will remain unanswered. But at least everyone will have had the impression that something was moving.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What did Trump say about conversations with Iran?
Trump described the conversations with Iran as "very good and productive," suggesting a positive diplomatic engagement.
Q: How did Iran respond to Trump's announcement?
A senior Iranian foreign ministry official stated that they received points from the United States through mediators, indicating that they are reviewing them but not engaging in direct negotiations.
Q: What is the historical context of U.S.-Iran negotiations?
The article notes that similar diplomatic exchanges have occurred in 2018, 2020, and 2024, often characterized by media hype but resulting in little substantive progress.