Iranian Diplomatic Perspective: Trump Playes Psychological Warfare with Iran Using Bluster, Red Lines, and the Nuclear Endgame
Donald Trump's recent statements about his red lines toward Iran must be assessed in the context of his well-established personality traits and strategic objectives, argues veteran Iranian diplomat and former governor Nosratollah Tajik in a commentary published by Etemad.
According to Tajik, Trump exploits language as a tool of warfare, is known for his contradictions, and deliberately employs verbose rhetoric to confuse adversaries. He uses social media and online platforms to set the agenda and impose his will — and his statements are often imprecise or subject to revision. This pattern, Tajik notes, is not unique to Iran but has been observed toward China, Ukraine, Gaza, and other international issues.
Zero Enrichment: A Negotiating Position, Not a Final Outcome
On the nuclear file, Washington's declared goal remains "zero percent enrichment." However, Tajik cautions against treating Trump's recent statements as a definitive outcome. "One must wait and see in which direction the negotiations move," he writes. Iran's technical capabilities — including concepts such as "nuclear breakout time" and "threshold status" — remain the domain of specialist assessment, and the political narrative should not be hijacked by media pressure or psychological operations.
Tajik underscores that any future agreement will be fundamentally different from the 2015 JCPOA. The JCPOA, he argues, was the product of a specific historical moment — the Arab Spring era, when Iran held considerable regional leverage and its deterrence architecture was intact. That context no longer exists. The subsequent activation of the snapback mechanism, Iran's altered nuclear programme, and the 12-day war between Iran, Israel, and the United States have rendered the JCPOA framework obsolete.
Iran's Proposed Package: Low-Level Enrichment as a Bridge
Based on media reports cited by Tajik, both sides appear to have moved away from the "zero enrichment" concept toward accepting some level of low-level enrichment. Iran's proposal for Thursday's scheduled talks is expected to outline a roadmap anchored on two core issues: the level of permitted enrichment, and the fate of the 60%-enriched uranium stockpile remaining after the U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Iran flatly rejects zero enrichment, insisting on its right to peaceful enrichment for medical, agricultural, and energy purposes. In return, the United States would need assurances that such enrichment would not increase in grade, push Iran toward threshold status, or reduce the nuclear breakout time. "Such formulas appear to be under review or design," Tajik writes.
He further suggests that for Washington, the fate of the 60%-enriched material may in fact matter more than the enrichment question itself — making it a likely focal point of any eventual deal.
Psychological Warfare and the Regime-Change Subtext
Tajik warns against falling into what he calls Trump's "psychological game." Trump's recent tweet warning that failure to reach a deal would be "bad for Iran and its people" is, in Tajik's reading, a deliberate attempt to inflame social divisions — first pitting citizens against each other, then against the government. This amounts to an acceleration of societal polarisation and what Tajik terms the "Syrianisation" of Iran.
Trump's contradictory statements in January 2025, Tajik argues, revealed that Washington has moved beyond seeking a change in Iranian behaviour and is now pursuing regime change, even at the cost of Iran's territorial fragmentation — but at minimal cost to itself. He adds that the conduct of some Iranian opposition figures abroad has inadvertently reinforced Trump's miscalculation that Iran would quickly capitulate under military pressure. "Wars generally happen not through calculation but through miscalculation," he cautions.
The Russia-China Factor
On the role of third-party actors, Tajik notes reports of emerging military cooperation between Iran and both Russia and China, including a possible 500-million-euro contract between Tehran and Moscow and discussions over the installation of Chinese radar systems in Iran. He acknowledges that these reports remain unconfirmed and informal.
Nevertheless, Tajik argues that the current international environment — marked by the US-China strategic rivalry, the Russia-Ukraine war, and its implications for Europe — could encourage more active roles for Moscow and Beijing in Iran's dossier. Both countries have publicly supported Iran's positions, including on the snapback mechanism and in the aftermath of the 12-day war. He cautions, however, that Iran must be careful not to become a bargaining chip in the broader international balance of power.
No Guarantee a "Limited Strike" Stays Limited
Addressing Wall Street Journal reports of a planned "initial limited strike" scenario, Tajik stresses that there is no guaranteed mechanism to ensure that even a limited U.S. attack on Iranian missile facilities would remain contained. Escalation is always possible, particularly given the risk of unintended incidents and the difficulty of controlling military dynamics once they are set in motion. "In a military confrontation, any miscalculation can create a chain of unpredictable consequences," he warns.
Despite the pessimism of many observers — including Vice President Vance — about Thursday's talks producing meaningful results given the wide gap between the two sides' positions, Tajik stops short of predicting either war or a breakthrough, urging analysts and citizens alike not to be swayed by the psychological operations being waged through the media.