Nournews: While nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States have entered a critical phase and the 4th round has been slated for May 11, some analysts are talking about the use of “Delaying Diplomacy” by Washington — a strategy not designed within the framework of purposeful psychological pressure, but rather rooted in bureaucratic distortions.

Aimful delays; hidden pressures with obvious impacts

During recent weeks, the cancellation of the planned meeting in Rome (May 3), without a specific alternative, has intensified the speculation that the U.S. is seeking to use time as a leverage tool. Some international affairs analysts believe that “delays are part of the U.S. strategy to put the Iranian side in a position where its decisions are subject to the other party's schedule.”

Causing strategic ambiguity or tactical frankness to impose maximum conditions?

While analysts were used to talk about strategic ambiguity tactic previously, the recent interview by Steve Witkoff, the special envoy of Trump in the Middle East affairs, showed that Washington sometimes choose maximum frankness in demanding instead of ambiguity. In an interview with Breitbart News Network he reiterated that “Iran must dismantle three sites of Natanz, Fordo and Isfahan completely, stop enrichment and transfer nuclear substances to abroad…if Sunday negotiations be fruitless, the path of negotiations will stop.”

While analysts had previously spoken of the tactic of "strategic ambiguity," a recent interview with David Witkoff, former advisor to the U.S. National Security Council and Trump’s special envoy for Middle East affairs, revealed that Washington sometimes opts for maximum clarity in its demands instead of ambiguity.
In an interview with Breitbart News, he stated explicitly:
"Iran must completely dismantle the three main sites — Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan — halt enrichment, and transfer its nuclear materials abroad... If next Sunday’s negotiations fail, the path for dialogue will come to an end."

These remarks reveal a strategy in which diplomacy is not aimed at achieving an understanding but is seen as a tool to further dismantle Iran's nuclear infrastructure. This level of frankness is part of the very mindset engineering that Washington is pursuing with its simultaneous strategy of threats and dialogue.

Silence in negotiations, the sound of threat in margin

At the same time as a temporary halt in negotiations, threatening rhetoric has also increased. Donald Trump has explicitly stated, "If necessary, we will strike Iran's facilities severely." The alignment of this threat with Witkoff's remarks about not tolerating a weak deal indicates a Combined Pressure Strategy, which uses a mix of threats, psychological warfare, and disruption of timing.

The ultimate goal; engineering the mindset framework of negotiation

The focal point of this strategy is to create a form of psychological subordination, a situation in which the Iranian side unintentionally operates within a timeline and mindset designed by the U.S. Washington seeks to appear as if negotiating, but in reality, it aims to make the Iranian negotiation team's mindset passive, doubtful, and reactive.

Conclusion
Although "playing with time" is not an obvious instrument of hard power, when combined with threats, extreme demands, and suspensions, it can significantly impact the decision-making process in Iran. What is crucial in these circumstances is establishing an independent mental and temporal framework, reinforcing strategic resistance, and focusing on indigenous bargaining power—a means of countering the invisible yet effective pressure from Washington.