WANA (Jan 23) – Donald Trump has once again revived his familiar narrative of “ending wars,” claiming that the United States is ready to engage in talks with Iran—an assertion made, as before, alongside military threats, secondary sanctions, and a renewed retelling of the attack on Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

 

Speaking on the sidelines of the Davos meeting and concurrently with the signing of what he called the “Gaza Peace Council Charter,” the U.S. president said Washington had helped bring an end to eight wars worldwide and that an “unprecedented peace” was taking shape in the Middle East.

 

He also claimed that Iran was seeking dialogue and that the United States was prepared for it—a statement delivered in the same speech that included threats of military action, the announcement of a 25 percent tariff on Iran’s trading partners, and references to the movement of a massive U.S. military force toward the region.

 

In this context, Trump explicitly confirmed a major naval deployment, stating: “We have an armada heading in that direction… I’d rather not see anything happen, but we’re watching them very closely.”

 

U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, say the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, along with several guided-missile destroyers, is expected to arrive in the Middle East in the coming days—a move that significantly expands Washington’s military options.

People walk past closed shops, following protests over a plunge in the currency’s value, in the Tehran Gold Grand Bazaar in Tehran, Iran, January 15, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

The simultaneity of calls for dialogue and explicit threats, while not new in Trump’s political vocabulary, once again raises a familiar question: is what Washington labels “diplomacy” in practice anything more than a reproduction of pressure-based policy?

 

Trump went on to repeat his claim that Iran’s nuclear capabilities had been “destroyed,” arguing that Tehran should have reached an agreement before last year’s U.S. military strike.

 

He warned that if Iran attempts to revive its nuclear program, the United States would respond militarily, saying: “If they try to do it again, they’ll have to go somewhere else—and we’ll hit them there too, just as easily.” Iranian officials, however, maintain that the U.S. attack occurred precisely while diplomatic channels were still active.

 

From the perspective of observers, this narrative gap between professed openness to dialogue and recourse to force sends not only contradictory signals to Tehran but also ambiguous messages to U.S. allies.

 

Trump also described the Gaza Peace Council as an institution with “historic potential,” claiming it includes “the world’s best leaders.” Yet the refusal of several countries to join the initiative has fueled serious doubts about its nature and effectiveness.

 

As the war in Gaza continues and the humanitarian crisis deepens, some analysts view the council less as a genuine institutional effort toward peace and more as part of Washington’s attempt to reframe its regional role following its unconditional support for Israel.

 

Elsewhere in his remarks, Trump again targeted Iran with threats, warning that certain internal actions—particularly judicial rulings related to individuals labeled as terrorists during recent unrest—could trigger a U.S. military response

 

White House’s Mad Chief Threatens Iran’s Supreme Leader

WANA (Jan 21) – In a recent interview with Politico, Donald Trump said, “It’s time to look for new leadership in Iran.” This was not just another harsh statement against Iran. It signaled something more serious: a sitting U.S. president shifting confrontation with Iran from the level of the state and political system to the […]

Read More...

 

At the same time, he announced imminent heavy tariffs on countries trading with Iran, reviving memories of the “maximum pressure” policy from his first term. Nevertheless, Trump insisted that he would prefer not to use military force and that the door to dialogue remains open.

 

To many analysts, this blend of hard threats and ambiguous diplomatic messaging is a hallmark of Trump’s familiar strategy—one aimed simultaneously at domestic audiences and foreign counterparts.

 

His statements on Ukraine, China, and Venezuela fit the same pattern: a president seeking to reconstruct the image of a “great mediator,” even if that image rests on simplifying complex crises and applying pressure alongside rhetoric.

 

When it comes to Iran, however, the issue goes beyond repetitive posturing. Experience from recent years suggests that invitations to dialogue, when accompanied by sanctions, threats, and one-sided narratives, neither build trust nor pave the way for diplomacy.

 

From this perspective, Trump’s latest remarks appear less like a new peace initiative and more like a continuation of the well-worn model of “diplomacy from a position of strength”—an approach repeatedly tested and, at least in the case of Iran, one that has failed to deliver sustainable results.