WANA (May 10) – In a recent interview with Breitbart, Steve Witkoff, Donald Trump’s representative on Middle East affairs and indirect talks between Iran and the U.S., laid out a sweeping list of Washington’s demands — framed in a tone that sounded more like an ultimatum than a proposal. But this is no longer just an interview. It’s a Cold War-era manifesto reborn — no troops, no missiles, but with the same old goal: Submission.

 

To grasp the full extent of this colonial mindset, one need only look at Witkoff’s blunt, unfiltered assertions:

 

  • All Iranian enrichment facilities, including Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, must be dismantled.
  • Iran must have no centrifuges; its uranium enrichment levels must be reduced and relocated.
  • The nuclear program should be strictly civilian.
  • No uranium enrichment activities should ever resume on Iranian soil.
  • Iran is weaker today than it was a decade ago.
  • Iran has no choice but to accept our terms.
  • It would be unwise for Iran to test President Trump.
  • A weak deal is unacceptable; we will walk away if necessary.
  • Civilian nuclear programs do not require enrichment capabilities.
  • If Sunday’s talks are unproductive, they will not continue.
  • Negotiations may expand to cultural and economic issues.
  • We aim to pressure Iran to cease support for groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.
  • For now, talks are limited to the nuclear file.
  • Other issues must not disrupt the negotiations; this is critical.
  • The nuclear file must be resolved immediately and urgently.

 

Witkoff did not say Iran must “clarify” — he said it must dismantle. He did not say, “let’s negotiate” — he said Iran has no other option. And that is precisely the moment when an analyst, regardless of political leaning, must ask a fundamental question:

 

Are we witnessing a debate about peace and nuclear non-proliferation, or an attempt to normalize modern-day colonialism under the guise of diplomacy?

An anti-US mural is seen in a street in Tehran, Iran, on April 19, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS ATTENTION EDITORS – THIS PICTURE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY

Behind the Curtain of Diplomacy: A Return to Guardianship Politics

Witkoff’s positions are unusually stark — even by Trump-era standards. He not only demands a halt to all enrichment activities, but also sets the dismantling of Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan as a precondition. And this, despite the fact that under the most stringent interpretations of IAEA guidelines, NPT member states retain the right to enrich uranium.

 

From this angle, Witkoff’s statement is far more than a “proposal.” It is an outright rewrite of national sovereignty. The U.S. is now using the language of peace to revive a 19th-century notion of guardianship: that “untrustworthy nations” must be contained — not through war, but via “controllable” versions of development.

 

U.S. actions confirm this predetermined narrative: just before the talks, Washington imposed fresh sanctions on Iran, penalized Chinese refineries for buying Iranian oil, and even reignited the debate over renaming the Persian Gulf.

 

These aren’t scattered positions. Together, they signal that the talks are likely to fail — and that the U.S. has already declared its verdict before even sitting down at the table.

Warnings That Can No Longer Be Ignored

The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran has repeatedly warned against negotiations with the U.S. — not out of opposition to diplomacy itself, but due to the hegemonic and deceptive nature of these talks. Just a month ago, he stated that such negotiations are neither wise, nor dignified, nor intelligent — because their outcome is always the same: new demands, harsher sanctions, and deeper deadlocks.

 

Witkoff’s words are not just confirmation of those warnings — they may mark the end of a long-standing political illusion within Iran: the illusion that a balanced agreement is possible with a government that cannot tolerate even a single centrifuge on Iranian soil.

 

Shifting the Playing Field: From the Middle East to the China Containment Strategy

Elsewhere in his remarks, Witkoff suggested that future talks could extend into “cultural and economic” realms. But behind that language lies more than diplomacy — it’s an attempt to shape Iran’s development trajectory in favor of a U.S.-centric regional order. In truth, this is not merely about the nuclear file; it’s about control over economic decisions, regional alliances, and even cultural identity.

 

This containment strategy isn’t just about Iran. It’s part of a broader play: countering China, constraining BRICS, keeping oil prices low, and shielding Israel amid rising instability. The U.S. can no longer afford full-scale war — Ukraine and its strategic retreats in Asia have proved that. So the new model is war in the “grey zone”: sabotage, economic pressure, psychological operations, and poisoned diplomacy.

 

A book with a cover design of the Iran-US negotiations is seen in Tehran

Negotiation Deadlock: Enrichment or Surrender?

WANA (May 07) – What has recently unfolded in the diplomatic arena between Iran and the United States increasingly resembles a return to square one—a point where an old question resurfaces: Is negotiation with the U.S. even possible?   A Stalemate in Talks The recent statement from Iran’s Foreign Ministry, delivered in a sharp and […]

Read More...

 

The Choice Has Never Been Clearer

What’s on the table today is not a genuine fork in the road. It’s a single, imposed path: either resist the soft disarmament strategy, or enter a never-ending loop of concessions that ultimately lead not to peace — but to the gradual erosion of Iran’s national independence.

 

The U.S. doesn’t fear a nuclear Iran; it fears a resilient one. And in the eyes of people like Witkoff, the real threat is not a centrifuge — it’s the will to stand on one’s own feet.