.webp)
According to Nournews, a news site with links to the Iranian regime, the current behavioral pattern of the United States towards Iran cannot be simply explained by 'contradictory statements.' Instead, it is a complex pressure strategy that simultaneously employs diplomacy, military threats, psychological operations, and field arrangements within the framework of cognitive warfare.
Nournews identifies a trilogy of war, negotiation, and psychological pressure in the crisis between Tehran and Washington. The simultaneous messages from the U.S. regarding readiness for negotiations and increased military threats are not a simple contradiction but a strategic design within cognitive warfare. The objective is to bring Iran to the negotiation table under conditions of perceived imbalance, where the cost of 'no agreement' appears greater than the cost of a 'limited agreement.' Concurrently, the U.S. aims to reassure its regional allies that the 'hard option' has not been removed from the table.
Israel's Role: Nournews highlights Israel's role as a determining variable in escalating tensions. Even when Israel's public statements decrease, it does not signify withdrawal from the scene. From the perspective of Iranian decision-makers, Israel is active not only in covert and sabotage operations but also plays a role in decision-making circles in Washington, encouraging a tougher approach against Iran.
A significant difference lies in the scope of Israel's demands versus the declared scope of negotiations by the U.S. While Washington signals nuclear negotiations, Israeli media and circles emphasize expanding the agenda to include Iran's missile program and regional policies. Nournews interprets this as an attempt to 'raise the ceiling of negotiations,' which increases the cost of agreement and the likelihood of negotiation failure, potentially leading to a comprehensive deadlock instead of a limited agreement.
Iran's Stance: Iran's declared position is based on two pillars: readiness to confront military aggression and conditional negotiation. Iran emphasizes a broad response to any military action and the regionalization of conflict. Simultaneously, it expresses readiness for fair and just negotiations under non-threatening conditions. Recent statements from defense officials indicate an effort to strengthen the message of readiness for war and to alter the opponent's calculations. It has also been clarified that in case of a U.S. attack, the response would also target Israel, aiming to increase the cost of any operational alliance.
Game Theory Perspective: Nournews frames this situation as a multi-player brinkmanship game. The U.S. seeks concessions without engaging in a major war by combining threats and negotiations. Israel escalates risk by raising threats and demands, weighing against a limited agreement. Iran attempts to establish a cost balance by extending deterrence and conditioning negotiations. In such a game, the primary risk is not a pre-designed decision for war, but rather a slide into conflict due to miscalculation or an uncontrolled incident.
Conclusion: While signs suggest efforts by both sides to create new mechanisms for resuming negotiations, the path of diplomacy remains open. However, the war of narratives, increasing demands, and the involvement of actors like Israel can make the negotiation process costly and fragile. The future of this issue largely depends on whether the negotiation agenda remains limited or if the U.S. intends to transform it into a maximalist package, which defines the boundary between possible negotiation and probable confrontation.
Photo: Nournews