Nournews: In recent days, the United States has implemented one of its most unprecedented sanction measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran since the launch of its maximum pressure campaign in 2018. This move, while accompanied by open calls for negotiation and occurring amid direct military aggression against Iran’s critical infrastructure — including nuclear facilities — carries a dual yet clear message: the use of diplomacy as an instrument of coercion rather than a mechanism for de-escalation. A closer look at the political and strategic dimensions of these latest U.S. sanctions, and the military attacks coordinated with the Zionist regime, reveals that the new proposal for negotiations is simply a repeat of the same scenario that failed in five previous rounds and, therefore, cannot provide a constructive basis for meaningful dialogue.
Sanctions in the Form of War: A Tool of Infrastructural Destruction
The recent sanctions announced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, targeting 115 individuals, entities, and vessels linked to Iran, in terms of design, scope, and objectives, resemble a military operation intended to disrupt the country’s vital capacities more than a conventional economic pressure tool. The Treasury Department described this as “the largest set of sanctions against Iran since 2018.” These measures directly target Iran’s vital infrastructure in the energy export sector, maritime transport system, and foreign currency revenue chain, effectively aiming to sever the country’s economic lifeline. This approach is strategically similar to military attacks on nuclear facilities such as Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. In both cases, the ultimate goal is infrastructural collapse and the creation of psychological and economic pressure on the public to coerce the political system into unconditional surrender — a demand openly articulated by Donald Trump.
The Contradiction Between Dialogue and Simultaneous Military Aggression
While claiming readiness for negotiations, the U.S. — in late June — launched direct and unlawful military attacks on Iran’s vital infrastructure in coordination with the Zionist regime. These attacks targeted nuclear facilities, research centers, and some urban areas, resulting in the martyrdom of several scientists, military personnel, and civilians. Simultaneously, Washington released statements boasting about the destruction of Iran’s nuclear industry. This occurred despite Iran’s recent demonstration of goodwill by engaging in indirect talks. Moreover, the imposition of new sanctions shortly after Iran reached an agreement with the European Union and accepted a visit by an IAEA delegation for technical discussions mirrors previous patterns. Past goodwill was met with military assault; current goodwill has resulted in the harshest sanctions yet. This sequence reveals that the U.S. and its Western allies use “negotiations” not to reach agreements but to intensify pressure, manipulate public opinion, and legitimize coercive measures.
Five Rounds of Talks, One Outcome: Betrayal Midway
Trump’s renewed call for negotiations comes despite the fact that five recent rounds of talks between Iran and the U.S. have clearly demonstrated Washington’s repeated derailment of dialogue through hostile actions such as sanctions and military threats. The latest military assault occurred precisely as Iran was preparing for a sixth round of negotiations — an event that even Iran’s foreign minister cited as proof of the U.S.'s untrustworthiness. In a recent interview with the Financial Times, Araghchi emphasized that “the U.S. must explain why it attacked us in the middle of negotiations,” and added, “As long as Trump demands a complete halt to enrichment, no agreement will be possible.” Hence, any return to the negotiation table without serious guarantees and reparations for damages will merely be a repetition of a failed path.
Sanctions and Strikes: Two Sides of the Same Coin in Trump’s Strategy
The Trump administration’s new strategy is a combination of hard power and economic warfare — both serving as complementary tools for maximum pressure. Just as American bombs targeted Iran’s facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, the latest sanctions network has struck at the heart of Iran’s energy export system.
In such a situation, the U.S. seeks to place Tehran under psychological siege through the simultaneous use of military force, sanctions, and talks — in order to compel Iran into accepting its conditions.
However, Iran has proven that it will never be a passive or helpless player. Whether on the battlefield or in diplomatic arenas, it will stand firm. Iran’s swift and unexpected military response to the Israeli aggression and its effective missile strike on the U.S. Al Udeid base in Qatar, in retaliation for American attacks, imposed significant costs on both Tel Aviv and Washington. These responses made it clear to the world that threats and coercion will never break the will of the Iranian people to defend their legitimate rights and interests, nor will they lead to submission before imperialist bullying and excessive demands.
The Deceptive Role of Diplomacy in the U.S. Strategy
The reality is that the United States uses diplomacy merely as a tool to buy time, manage public perception, and legitimize its hostile actions. The U.S.’s treatment of the IAEA, its handling of the 2015 nuclear deal, and its latest attacks in the midst of negotiations all support this claim. Washington does not seek de-escalation — it seeks unilateral Iranian surrender. Trump’s recent negotiation proposal, accompanied by his ambiguous warning, “I hope I won’t have to use too much of it,” is less an expression of diplomatic seriousness and more a calculated psychological and political tactic to exert increased pressure on Iran.
The Path to Dialogue Lies Through a Change in U.S. Behavior
The Islamic Republic of Iran, as demonstrated in the aftermath of the recent conflict, remains ready to engage in dialogue — but only within a framework of mutual respect, adherence to international law, and the protection of its national interests. However, such dialogue will only be meaningful if the U.S. abandons its dual-track approach, compensates Iran for its damages, and guarantees that negotiations will not again become an arena for betrayal and aggression.
As long as Washington continues to mix diplomacy with sanctions and missiles, no path to agreement will be possible. Iran’s message is clear: no negotiations under fire, no surrender to force. The only viable path forward is a return to genuine dialogue, respect for national sovereignty, and the abandonment of hostile policies — a path that the U.S. has so far deliberately blocked.
NOURNEWS