LONDON - Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy for Middle Eastern [ West Asian] affairs, has taken many by surprise with his sudden change in tone. Not long ago, he was advocating for "maximum pressure" on Iran, but now he’s talking about "building trust" and "resolving misunderstandings." This stark contradiction in the Trump administration’s approach has once again come to light, this time in its dealings with Iran.

What started as a policy of threats and potential war has now shifted to efforts at negotiation and diplomatic overtures. But what’s behind this abrupt shift? Has the Trump administration realized that its maximum pressure strategy has failed, or is this just a tactic to buy time?

In a recent interview, Witkoff revealed that Trump had sent a message to Tehran, proposing talks based on "mutual respect." This stands in sharp contrast to the aggressive rhetoric of Mike Waltz, the White House National Security Advisor, who just last week declared that the administration was aiming for the "complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program." These conflicting stances highlight a deep divide within the Trump administration’s strategy. But this isn’t the first time the White House’s Iran policy has been marked by confusion and contradictions.

When Trump pulled out of the JCPOA during his first term, he promised to bring Iran to the negotiating table. Instead, the opposite happened. Iran not only refused to back down but also expanded its nuclear activities and strengthened its regional influence. Back then, the White House repeatedly insisted that no negotiations would take place unless Tehran completely abandoned its nuclear program. Fast forward to 2025, and despite all the threats and sanctions, the U.S. is not only seeking talks but has even reportedly hinted at easing some initial sanctions in a letter from Trump to Iran.

This shift is largely attributed to domestic challenges in the U.S., facing economic troubles and public dissatisfaction, Trump needs a foreign policy win to showcase as a success. A military conflict with Iran would be incredibly costly, so he’s looking to secure at least a temporary agreement to present as an achievement. However, Iran, having experienced the JCPOA, is no longer easily swayed by White House promises.

In a subtle response to Trump’s message, Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei stated that threats and inducements won’t work against Iran. Tehran has repeatedly emphasized that it won’t negotiate under pressure and that any dialogue must be based on mutual respect. This stance makes it clear that Trump’s proposal, at least for now, is unlikely to gain traction with Iran.

Trump’s change in tone, however, sends a clear message: the White House’s policies against Iran have failed. This failure isn’t just diplomatic; it’s evident on the ground as well. In recent years, the U.S. has worked hard to isolate Iran economically and politically, but Iran has not only avoided isolation—it has strengthened ties with Russia, China, and even some Arab nations. For Trump, this is a bitter pill to swallow, forcing him to shift from a position of strength to a softer approach.

But does this shift signal a genuine retreat? Many believe Trump is still playing a carrot-and-stick game. On one hand, he talks about negotiations in a diplomatic tone, while on the other, he continues to threaten "military action." This dual strategy has been a hallmark of his administration. When Trump sent a peace message to North Korea, he simultaneously ramped up sanctions. When he spoke of withdrawing U.S. forces from West Asia, he immediately deployed more warships to the region. Now, he’s employing the same approach with Iran.

What’s different this time is Iran’s response. Tehran is no longer rushing into negotiations in the hope of reaching an agreement, as it did in the past. Iranian policymakers are well aware that Trump is looking for a publicity stunt and isn’t willing to make real concessions. As a result, despite economic pressures, Iran remains steadfast in its positions.

Meanwhile, America’s allies are also feeling the strain. The Zionist regime, which has always supported strict policies against Iran, is now watching Trump’s change in tone with concern. Benjamin Netanyahu, the regime’s prime minister, reacted to Trump’s message by saying, "We cannot trust any new agreement with Iran." This statement reflects the confusion even among America’s closest allies over the contradictions in Trump’s policies.

Within the U.S., there are also sharp divisions on this issue. Hardline Republicans like Lindsey Graham oppose any negotiations with Iran, calling it a dangerous retreat. On the other hand, some American politicians argue that continuing the maximum pressure policy will only push Iran toward more aggressive actions and that diplomacy should be given a chance.

In this context, the question remains: is Trump genuinely seeking a new agreement, or is he simply trying to pressure Iran? Recent years have shown that Trump often bases his policies on short-term personal interests, paying little attention to long-term strategies. If he can resolve the Iran crisis in his favor with a diplomatic show, he’ll undoubtedly do so, even if it means temporarily retreating from his previous positions.

But Iran is no longer the same player it was in 2015, willing to enter an agreement at any cost. Learning from the past, Tehran is determined to maintain the upper hand in any potential negotiations and avoid falling for America’s diplomatic maneuvers. What we’re witnessing now is more of a tactical move by Washington than a strategic shift—one that’s unlikely to deliver the results Trump is hoping for.