TEHRAN – As Iranian and U.S. negotiators concluded the second round of indirect nuclear talks in Rome on Saturday, Washington’s credibility hangs in the balance.

A cascade of contradictory statements from Trump administration officials, leaks exposing deep ideological rifts, and Tehran’s calculated position have laid bare a U.S. policy in disarray—far from projecting strength and clarity, these inconsistencies suggest a government unsure of its goals, offering Iran a strategic edge at a pivotal moment.

Witkoff’s mixed messages

Steve Witkoff, U.S. President Donald Trump’s special envoy to West Asia and the lead U.S. negotiator during the nuclear talks with Iran, exemplifies the chaos with his public remarks, which have swung like a pendulum.

During a Fox News interview on Tuesday, Witkoff suggested the U.S. might accept limited uranium enrichment by Iran for civilian purposes. “The conversation with the Iranians will focus on two critical points: enrichment levels and verification. Iran must not enrich beyond 3.67%,” he said, echoing terms of the defunct 2015 nuclear deal.

Yet within hours, Witkoff reversed course on social media, demanding Iran “stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program entirely.”

The abrupt shift stunned observers and drew sharp condemnation from Tehran. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei likened the flip-flop to “moving the goalposts in football [soccer]—a professional foul that poisons the atmosphere of talks.”

Analysts suggest Witkoff’s whiplash reflects a tug-of-war within the administration. His initial remarks aligned with Vice President JD Vance and “America First” advocates urging diplomacy, while the hardened stance echoed Ultra Zionist neoconservatives such as National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, who have long pushed for harmful policies regarding Iran.

Thus, Witkoff’s flip-flopping can be seen not merely as a personal misstep, but as a glaring symptom of a broader U.S. policy in disarray.

Leaks expose rifts: The “waived strike” and cabinet discord

A recent New York Times report further exposed the administration’s fractures. According to the article, Trump rejected a proposed Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities during a tense Oval Office meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The plan, slated for May, called for U.S.-backed airstrikes using 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs to target underground enrichment sites, according to the American newspaper.

Trump instead opted to pursue diplomacy, reportedly telling Netanyahu, “We’re not backing military action while we’re at the table.”

Even though some may view the leak as yet another wave of threats aimed at forcing Iran into capitulation, it can equally be attributed to dissenting factions—exposing a cabinet at war.

Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly lobbied aggressively for the strike. They clashed with Vance and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who warned against sparking a broader conflict in West Asia.

In a recent public disclosure, Gabbard’s office spotlighted intelligence assessments attesting that Iran has neither developed nor is actively pursuing a nuclear bomb. The revelation further dismantled the narratives of warmongers and anti-Iran voices, exposing U.S. intelligence agencies' recognition of this reality.

Analysts remarked that a lack of internal unity invariably weakens the U.S. government's position. Additionally, the infighting has left U.S. “allies” uneasy.

Israeli regime’s officials privately expressed frustration over Trump’s rejection of the strike, while European diplomats fear the administration’s incoherence could scuttle talks entirely.

Iran’s steady hand

Amid Washington’s tumult, Tehran has projected unwavering resolve.

In a recent address to senior Iranian officials, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, cautioned against both overly optimism and overly pessimism regarding negotiations with the U.S.

He noted that the initial decision to engage in talks were well-executed and that future steps should be taken with precision, keeping in mind that the red lines for both Iran and the opposing parties are clearly defined.

Senior Iranian officials and negotiators, citing sovereignty and resistance to Western pressure, have echoed the same principals.

Thus, solely by remaining the more coherent player and sticking to its foundational positions, Iran can turn U.S. indecision into diplomatic advantage.