TEHRAN – A deep mistrust of American politicians has been a prevalent sentiment among Iranians for decades, dating back to the 1953 U.S.-led coup against the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh.

The coup occurred in coordination with the UK after Washington had begun to form a close relationship with the MP-turned-prime minister, leading him to believe he could trust the Americans as new allies to replace the British, who had been looting Iran’s oil under the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.

This sentiment never dissipated and was significantly reinforced this past June when U.S. President Donald Trump launched a joint military aggression with Israel against Iran. The strikes on the country’s nuclear, civilian, and military sites resulted in approximately 1,100 deaths—all while Trump was scheduled to attend a sixth round of nuclear negotiations that had been underway since April.

When the war broke out, opinions varied on why Trump attacked Iran in the middle of a diplomatic process. Some suggested he was deceived by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, while others argued he entered the talks in good faith but pivoted to military action after realizing the Iranians would not yield to his excessive demands. But a recent revelation in the American media confirms a possibility many had hoped was not true: that Trump never intended for diplomacy to succeed. Instead, he used the negotiations as a cover to prepare for war—a reality that calls into question the U.S. commitment to diplomacy for not only Iranians, but the entire international community.

A Washington Post article published on December 17 claims that the United States and Israel pursued a coordinated military path against Iran while publicly promoting a diplomatic track designed to manage global opinion rather than reach a fair agreement. 

The Tehran Times understands Iranians had their own suspicions about whether the U.S. was genuinely looking for a deal, but still decided to engage in negotiations Trump had been asking for since 2018 to make sure they were giving diplomacy a chance.

According to the report, months of “stealthy, intensive strategic planning” were conducted between Washington and Tel Aviv even as U.S. officials spoke of wanting a deal with Iran. Intelligence-sharing, operational coordination, and strike preparations continued in parallel with negotiations.

The article confirms that diplomacy was not derailed by Iran, but deliberately instrumentalized to conceal preparations for war.

The Post also reports that while U.S. officials publicly signaled optimism about negotiations and allowed media speculation about disagreements with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, both sides were fully aligned behind the scenes. Reports of a rift were, according to the article, encouraged to keep Iran “unprepared” for what would follow.

Even after the initial Israeli strikes, the Trump administration reportedly transmitted what it described as a “final” diplomatic proposal to Iran through Qatari channels — without disclosing that U.S. military involvement had already been approved should Tehran refuse the terms.

The proposal, obtained by the Washington Post, reportedly demanded that Iran dismantle its uranium enrichment program, “replace” key facilities such as Fordow with non-enriching alternatives, and end support for regional allies, in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.

Tehran rejected the proposal, viewing it as a demand for strategic surrender rather than a negotiated settlement.

Shortly afterward, the United States joined Israel militarily, escalating the conflict and confirming that the outcome had been predetermined regardless of Iran’s response.

President Masoud Pezeshkian addressed this dynamic directly in a Wednesday meeting with political elites, saying enemies seek to “take away all the components of Iran’s power and weaken the country against the Zionist regime.”

“We seek peace, but we do not accept bullying,” Pezeshkian said. “They disrupted negotiations and launched the war. Now they are setting forth degrading conditions for talks, which I refuse to accept.”

Following the mid-June airstrikes and U.S. military involvement, Washington imposed a new wave of sanctions on Iran, targeting financial networks, energy-related entities, shipping, and individuals allegedly connected to Iran’s defense and nuclear sectors.

Tehran argues that the timing of the sanctions — imposed immediately after military escalation — further demonstrates that economic warfare was always intended to accompany military pressure, regardless of Iran’s diplomatic posture.

Iranian officials stress that sanctions were not a response to Iran’s actions but part of a broader coercive strategy aimed at forcing Tehran to abandon its sovereign rights, including peaceful nuclear enrichment and defensive missile capabilities.

Iran has repeatedly stated that it has no intention of building nuclear weapons and remains ready for extensive verification. However, it has categorically rejected demands for zero enrichment and limits on its missile program, calling them violations of national sovereignty.

The Leader of Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei warned earlier this fall that negotiations with the United States would be harmful under such conditions.

“They have already determined the results of the negotiations. They want us to dismantle our nuclear program and stop enrichment. How can this be called negotiation?” he said.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has echoed this position, stating that Iran has never abandoned diplomacy but will only engage if talks are conducted “on an equal footing,” without dictation or hidden military threats.

Compounding tensions, the European trio — France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — invoked the JCPOA “snapback” mechanism in late August, beginning a process to restore UN sanctions that had been lifted under the 2015 nuclear deal.

Tehran views the snapback move, coming after airstrikes and fresh U.S. sanctions, as further proof that Western powers are pursuing pressure, not resolution.

Iran had already held five rounds of negotiations on a replacement for the JCPOA prior to the June attacks, but officials now say trust has been severely damaged.

For Tehran, the Washington Post’s revelations confirm a central claim: diplomacy cannot be meaningful when one side negotiates while preparing war and sanctions in parallel.