Washington's "Points" Under Scrutiny: A Legacy of Deception Undermines Any Negotiating Horizon with Tehran

Washington – Said Arikat – 25/3/2026

News Analysis

Recent Iranian statements regarding American calls to resume negotiations reflect an unprecedented level of distrust, based on what Tehran considers a repeated record of "deception" in American behavior. The assertion by Iranian officials that they were "deceived twice" by US President Donald Trump is not presented as a casual accusation, but as the culmination of an experience in which Tehran believes Washington used negotiation as a cover for military actions and unilateral pressures.

In this context, the American call for direct talks, despite its apparent diplomatic nature, is surrounded by deep skepticism, especially as it coincides with military reinforcements and field movements. Iran has informed regional mediators, including Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey, that this timing reinforces the hypothesis that negotiation may again be used as a tool of deception, rather than as a serious path to conflict resolution.

This Iranian approach is based on a pivotal experience, namely the American withdrawal from the nuclear agreement in 2018, a step that is still considered in Tehran as stark evidence of the fragility of American commitments. From an Iranian perspective, it was not limited to violating an international agreement, but also included the re-imposition of harsh sanctions under the slogan of "maximum pressure," which solidified the conviction that Washington does not hesitate to use agreements as temporary tools, subject to reversal when political calculations change.

This legacy makes it difficult for Tehran to treat any new initiative as a genuine opportunity, as American behavior is viewed as based on systematic duplicity: diplomatic rhetoric on the one hand, and escalatory measures on the other. In this context, current military movements are not read merely as a means of negotiating pressure, but as an extension of a previous pattern that Iran considers closer to "strategic deception" than to traditional diplomacy.

In contrast, the US administration continues to promote the concept of "negotiating from a position of strength," where military buildup is seen as a tool to impose better terms at the negotiating table. A statement by one of Trump's advisors that the President "extends a hand for an agreement, while the other hand is a fist ready to strike" clearly reflects this approach. However, this approach, which falls under coercive diplomacy, appears in the Iranian case to be a double-edged sword, as it deepens suspicions rather than reducing them.

Indeed, this method, from a critical perspective, not only weakens the chances of understanding but undermines the very basis of the negotiation process. When negotiation is seen as a tool of pressure or a tactical trick, it loses its meaning as a path based on mutual trust and stable commitments. In the Iranian case, it seems that this perception has become so entrenched that any American initiative is subject to interpretation as a new attempt to reproduce the same method.

Despite attempts at de-escalation, including the possibility of Vice President J.D. Vance's participation, these steps are still insufficient to dispel doubts. Reports of continued military preparations and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's directives to continue pressure reinforce the impression that Washington has not changed the essence of its approach, but is re-presenting it in a different form.

These developments coincide with the continuation of military operations since late February, alongside the presentation of a 15-point American plan that includes sensitive issues such as Iran's nuclear program and ballistic missiles, in addition to vital maritime corridors, especially the Strait of Hormuz. However, this initiative, instead of being seen as a gesture of breakthrough, is met with extreme caution in Tehran, amid a conviction that the American "points" may be merely a fragile negotiating framework, subject to change or withdrawal at the first political test.

In conclusion, the current crisis does not appear to be merely a dispute over agreement terms or security arrangements, but an expression of a deep-rooted crisis of trust. For Iran, the problem is no longer in the content of American proposals as much as it is in the credibility of the party presenting them. With this perception persisting, any negotiating path will remain threatened with collapse, unless Washington shows a real shift in its behavior, going beyond what Tehran considers a long record of maneuvering and deception.