WANA (Apr 12) – On May 9, 2018, Donald Trump, along with his anti-Iran Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence, had lunch at the White House. Just hours later, he arrogantly appeared before the media and declared Iran the “leading sponsor of global insecurity,” calling the nuclear deal (JCPOA) a “horrible and decaying agreement” that should never have been signed.

 

In an 11-minute and 10-second speech, the then U.S. President painted a terrifying picture of Iran, accusing Tehran of attacking U.S. embassies around the world, supporting terrorist and paramilitary groups in the region, seeking nuclear weapons, and authoritarian governance, among other things.

 

Moments later, with his war-hawk advisor John Bolton present in the room, Trump issued a presidential memorandum withdrawing from the nuclear deal between Iran and the six world powers—stunning Iran and its allies.

 

Iran’s then-President Hassan Rouhani, alongside the man who claimed to “speak the language of the world” and understand the West’s deceptive rhetoric, had somewhat anticipated that Trump’s rise would bring unfavorable conditions for Tehran. However, they never imagined being so blatantly outmaneuvered by the American side.

 

To mitigate the embarrassment of his excessive and arguably naïve trust in the U.S., Rouhani declared, “I am glad that a disruptive element has left the JCPOA.” He knew well that this “disruptive element”—the U.S.—was the very country many of his allies idolized. These same allies were ecstatic when Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif stood alongside his American and European counterparts during the finalization of the JCPOA in Vienna.

Nuclear deal negotiators pose for a photo at the UN building in Vienna, Austria.

Zarif, who once said, “John Kerry’s signature is a guarantee,” was perhaps the most acutely aware of the Americans’ betrayal. Yet, to avoid disappointing his president, he promised that European signatories would uphold the deal—promises that ultimately proved hollow.

 

It’s worth recalling that Ali Rabiei, Rouhani’s government spokesman, held “informal and private” meetings with domestic and foreign journalists shortly after the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA. With the presence of a pro-Western academic (D. H.), they attempted to argue that if Trump had not been elected, the agreement would have reached a favorable conclusion. They claimed that Trump’s “stupidity” had actually helped create a rift between the U.S. and Europe!

 

The most striking aspect of these sessions was their extreme language about Trump. He was labeled a “madman” and a “psychopath” who should be in a mental institution rather than the White House.

 

What was truly astonishing at the time was that, despite the U.S.’s blatant breach of the JCPOA and the reformist government’s disillusionment with Western promises, the pro-Western reformist bloc in Iran continued to blame internal factions rather than holding the U.S. accountable for mocking years of Iranian diplomatic effort.

 

This Western-leaning camp blamed Iran’s Supreme Leader’s anti-American rhetoric and refusal to recognize Israel as a legitimate state as the reasons for America’s withdrawal. For a time, they even claimed that anti-Israel slogans written on Iranian missiles had derailed the nuclear deal.

 

No War, No Peace; Just Crisis Management

WANA (Apr 11) – The indirect talks between Iran and the United States, mediated by Oman, are designed in a way that they’re never officially labeled as “negotiations“—yet they carry all the features of one. It’s a precise, layered, multi-dimensional game that may seem like a side event to many, but in reality, it’s a […]

Read More...

 

Now, we are once again witnessing Donald Trump’s return to the U.S. presidency—the very man whom Iran’s reformists once called “insane” and unworthy of negotiations. Yet paradoxically, this same pro-Western bloc in Iran is now increasingly pushing for direct, unconditional talks with the U.S.

 

Do the reformists now believe that Trump has undergone psychiatric treatment and will present logical, guaranteed proposals in Oman?

 

And once again, negotiations…

It is evident that the American and Western sides have, during every Iranian administration, sought negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program and other bilateral disputes. Despite various concerns and reservations, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has never outright prevented logical and dignified negotiations, giving successive governments the opportunity to explore diplomacy.

 

Most recently, on March 7, 2025, the newly elected U.S. President sent a letter to Ayatollah Khamenei requesting talks. Following this official request, President Pezeshkian’s administration was given permission to engage in conditional negotiations. One possible reason for Ayatollah Khamenei’s approval—despite previously declaring that talks with America are “neither wise, nor intelligent, nor honorable”—could be to silence critics who claim that decades of animosity between Iran and the U.S. could have ended, leading to Iranian prosperity, had the Supreme Leader not opposed negotiations.

No official Iranian source has revealed the exact content of Trump’s letter. Perhaps, contrary to American claims and Western media portrayals, the letter was humble and aligned with Tehran’s interests—persuading the Supreme Leader to greenlight negotiations.

 

The leader of the self-proclaimed “world sheriff” has officially requested dialogue with Iran, claiming a desire to resolve disputes. Though America has made similar requests in the past and repeatedly broken promises, Iranian officials now seem to recognize the U.S.’s true intent in this round of diplomacy: to create internal political and social division in Iran. By not rejecting the talks outright, Iran avoids giving its critics ammunition.

 

The Supreme Leader’s close advisors are generally reasonable, moderate, and fair-minded. They do not make impulsive decisions or statements, and their presence lends significant weight to the Leader’s choices—especially regarding U.S. negotiations.

 

It is worth noting that all of America’s military actions in the past three to four decades in the West Asia region have targeted weakened, poorly equipped nations—such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now Yemen. Many Iranians believe that U.S. military threats against Iran are merely a media tactic to extract concessions at the negotiating table. They understand that Iran in 2025 is no easy target; any attempt to attack or destabilize it would come at a tremendous cost.

 

Trump is no inexperienced leader. During his first term—with warmongering advisors like Mike Pompeo and John Bolton—he didn’t dare attack Iran. How could he now, with even less domestic support for such military action?

 

In Oman, Iranian and American delegations will likely engage in indirect talks about the nuclear issue and possibly other matters. This could mark the beginning of a longer path toward resolving the longstanding conflict between the two nations. Yet for decades, relations between Iran and the U.S. have been effectively held hostage by Israel. It seems that this “elephant” of a superpower has handed over its decision-making in West Asia to a “mouse.”

Wana -US and Iran

Iran Holds the Upper Hand in Today’s Talks

WANA (Apr 12) – Although the American side pretends to have the upper hand in the Oman negotiations, the reality so far shows that Iran is the one holding the advantage.   This advantage is currently evident in three key areas:   1. The necessity of limiting the talks to the nuclear file   2. […]

Read More...