Trump's recent statements about holding a direct meeting with high-ranking Iranian officials on Saturday should be assessed as part of a complex and orchestrated psychological operation aimed at influencing both domestic and international public opinion.
Making these claims in conjunction with the presence of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he asserts that “negotiations at the highest levels” between Iran and the United States are ongoing, and ahead of an official trip to Riyadh, he has hinted at an important and direct meeting with the Iranian side—one that, according to reports from media outlets like Al Jazeera, Reuters, and the Associated Press, Trump believes has also been accepted by Iranian officials.
Meanwhile, the spokesperson for the Islamic Republic's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other diplomatic officials have completely rejected this claim, emphasizing that no discussions have taken place so far and that any future negotiations would only occur indirectly.
Engineering Political Narratives and Psychological Tactics
Trump's media maneuvering must be analyzed within the framework of the narrative war in US foreign policy. By asserting direct negotiations, Trump aims not only to claim diplomatic initiative but also to place Iran in a defensive position, portraying the Islamic Republic as an inflexible player opposed to dialogue.
This tactic serves dual political functions for Trump on the domestic front and acts as a tool for exerting political pressure at regional and international levels, especially following global pressures on the US during the trade wars.
In this context, the main goal is not to reach an agreement but to cement the United States' position as the "initiator" and "leader" in resolving conflicts; a narrative disseminated through extensive media coverage and utilizing news sources close to the White House, met with measured responses from Iranian officials, particularly at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Referring to the Libyan Model: Threats Disguised as Agreements
In addition to this media activity, Benjamin Netanyahu's remarks in Washington, following Trump's statements about the possibility of reaching a "Libya-like" agreement with Iran, carry specific implications in strategic analyses.
Referring to the Libyan model clearly indicates the insincere interpretation by the American side and its allies of the concept of an agreement. The experience of Libya in 2003—where Muammar Gaddafi's government faced military intervention from NATO and eventual collapse after accepting complete disarmament, extensive international oversight, and the opening of its defense structures—lingers in the strategic memory of many independent countries.
In this framework, referencing such a model not only lacks a diplomatic message but also reflects a coercive and threatening approach in the policies of the US and its allies.
Media Diplomacy Versus Official Diplomacy
The contradiction between the claims made by the White House and the official positions of the Islamic Republic of Iran signals a lack of necessary infrastructure for a genuine diplomatic process. Just as Trump previously attempted to elevate his position through media pressure in his correspondence with Tehran, he is once again seeking to manipulate the perceptual landscape with an unplanned and undocumented claim. However, the absence of clear channels, preliminary coordination, and even basic understanding indicates that this assertion is more a tactical display serving short-term political goals than a sign of diplomatic realism.
Strategic Assessment of Saturday's Scenario
Strategically, what Trump seeks is not the beginning of a reliable diplomatic path but rather to test Iran's reaction to combined psychological, media, and political pressures. This action aims to assess the Islamic Republic's readiness to enter into negotiations—an engagement that, if met with acquiescence and silence from Tehran, could be exploited as a basis for imposing unilateral US demands.
Conversely, the clear and reasoned position of Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which explicitly rejects any direct negotiations and conditions the possibility of indirect talks on special circumstances, reflects the maintenance of coherence in the resistance diplomacy strategy. As long as the United States does not change its actual behavior and continues to pursue changes in its counterpart's calculations through threats, sanctions, and psychological operations, no negotiation—be it direct or indirect—can serve as a basis for genuinely resolving the issues at hand.
NOURNEWS