What Is the Cause of Witkoff’s Oscillating Behavior?
WANA (May 11) – Steve Witkoff’s contradictory or “pendulum-like” behavior regarding Iran’s nuclear energy issue can be analyzed from several angles:
1. Lack of Formal Diplomatic Experience
Witkoff has no background in foreign policy or international relations; he is a real estate investor and a close associate of Donald Trump. The absence of formal training in diplomacy or international policymaking may lead to positions that are at times hasty, emotional, unstable, or influenced by the media climate.
2. Informal Mediatory Role
As an unofficial or non-traditional representative in complex cases like Iran negotiations, he plays more of a political or media intermediary role rather than that of a professional negotiator (unlike someone like John Kerry). This position allows him, at times, to make contradictory statements for tactical purposes—such as simultaneously signaling both flexibility and threats.
West Asia and the U-Turn in Trump’s Foreign Policy
WANA (May 11) – By now, it’s widely recognized that Donald Trump’s foreign policy is driven more by prestige-seeking and “threats for leverage” than by any real appetite for costly, open-ended wars. While he occasionally falls into the trap set by hawkish figures like John Bolton or Mike Pompeo—who exploit his vanity and naivety to […]
3. Attempt to Balance Multiple Audiences
Witkoff may be trying to send different messages to various audiences: adopting a tough stance domestically (e.g., to appeal to certain pro-Israel lobbies or conservative voters), while presenting a softer tone in international or Middle Eastern media. This attempt to “please everyone” can result in contradictory positions.
4. Trump’s Influence
Witkoff’s positions may be a direct reflection of messages he receives from Donald Trump or those close to him. Trump himself has a history of shifting stances on Iran and the JCPOA (as well as other international issues). If Witkoff is aligning himself with Trump’s day-to-day changing views, this would result in fluctuations in his statements.
5. Deliberate Media Use of Ambiguity
In some cases, ambiguity or contradiction in speech may be intentional, to keep the opposing side (in this case, Iran) in a state of uncertainty. This is an old Trump negotiation tactic from his real estate days and is sometimes used in negotiations to maintain the upper hand.
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 […]
Among the above cases, which is the most important?
Number 3. The United States has two key characteristics that must be taken into account in Iranian analyses:
1. The United States is not a homogeneous country (unlike, for example, Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany, or even Russia, etc.), and this heterogeneity results in the observation of severe contradictions in the messages transmitted from Washington (compared to the messages coming from London, Tokyo, Berlin, and Moscow).
2. The United States is a site of constant power struggles. The powers within the U.S. are continuously exerting pressure on one another, and unfortunately, Iranian media are only (somewhat) familiar with the Israeli lobby in the U.S. Because of this, political positions on an important issue sometimes change within a short period of time.
The reason for this change is the shifting balance of power (Equilibrium of Power) on American soil. For example, less than two years passed between the beginning of military aid to Zelensky and the start of criticism toward him in the U.S. Congress! And the rest of Zelensky’s story—we all saw that too.
Zelensky Trapped: The Mirage of Western Support
WANA (Mar 01) – Last night, the global political stage witnessed a tense and controversial event. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump, faced a humiliating encounter. What was supposed to be a crucial agreement on mineral resources between Washington and Kyiv turned into a heated verbal clash in the […]
A Strategic Point from the Iranian Negotiating Team
The Iranian team must focus solely on what is said during the negotiations and avoid getting distracted by media-related side issues. At the same time, the Iranian team should not allow the absence of an official Iranian embassy on U.S. soil to result in a “lack of presence” in the active lobbying scene within the United States.
Instead, the Iranian team should remain in constant contact with the media and prominent figures inside the U.S. (in parallel with the negotiations).
America is a boiling cauldron where changes occur within the context of this constant bubbling (and lack of stillness/stability). In negotiations with Trump, the Iranian team must not overlook the historical and social realities of the United States.
And has the time not come, fundamentally, for Iran to have an official (and effective) embassy on American soil?
