What Was Trump Trying to Achieve With His New Iran Remarks?
WANA (Mar 23) – U.S. President Donald Trump, in his latest interview on Iran, made a fresh series of claims regarding Tehran’s nuclear program, the prospects of a deal, how Washington could gain access to Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, and the existence of backchannel contacts — claims that, coming at the same time as explicit Iranian denials of any negotiations, have added a new layer to the intensifying war of narratives between Tehran and Washington.
In the interview, Trump once again reiterated his so-called “zero enrichment” position, saying the United States would accept no level of uranium enrichment by Iran. He went even further, claiming that Washington not only wants Iran to stop enrichment altogether, but also seeks to take possession of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles.
“We want no enrichment, and we also want to take the enriched uranium. If that happens, it would be a very good start for Iran to rebuild itself,” he said.
A Direct Claim About Taking Iran’s Enriched Uranium
When asked how the United States would obtain access to Iran’s enriched uranium reserves, Trump made one of his most unusual and explicit claims to date: “It’s very simple. If we have a deal, we go in and take it.”
The statement is being viewed as one of Trump’s clearest public positions on Iran’s nuclear file — because it goes beyond demanding a halt to enrichment and directly calls for the transfer of enriched material into U.S. control.
Trump Backs Down from Threat to Strike Iran’s Energy Infrastructure
WANA (Mar 23) – Donald Trump, the President of the United States, stepped back from his earlier stance following rising tensions over a potential attack on Iran’s energy infrastructure, announcing a delay in the move. The shift came after a clear warning from the Islamic Republic of Iran that any U.S. military action would be […]
Threatening Iran’s Energy Infrastructure
In another part of the interview, the U.S. president adopted a distinctly threatening tone, claiming Washington had been close to striking Iran’s energy infrastructure.
“We were going to destroy their biggest power plants, which cost more than $10 billion to build. One strike and it’s gone. Completely destroyed. It collapses.”
Trump then claimed that this is what pushed Iran toward a deal: “That’s why they called. I didn’t call — they called. They want to make a deal.”
Trump Says Talks Exist; Tehran Says They Don’t
Trump also claimed that Steve Witkoff, his special envoy, is in contact with “a senior, respected person at the leadership level” in Iran, while clarifying that this individual is not Iran’s Supreme Leader.
That claim comes as Iranian sources and several officials have explicitly denied any direct or indirect negotiations with Trump. At the same time, reports in U.S. media — including Axios — suggest that what Trump has described as “negotiations” may in fact amount only to message exchanges through intermediaries such as Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan, rather than any formal or direct dialogue between Tehran and Washington.
People walk past a huge billboard displaying images of Iranian missiles, amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, March 16, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)
“They Will Never Have a Nuclear Weapon”
Elsewhere in the interview, Trump claimed there are currently “about 15 points” on the table for a possible deal with Iran, but stressed that the absolute core of any agreement, from his perspective, is preventing Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon.
“They’re not going to have a nuclear weapon. That’s number one. That’s number one, two, and three. They will never have a nuclear weapon, and they’ve agreed to that.”
Contradictory Claims: ‘Destroyed’ Sites, Yet an Ongoing Threat
Asked about the contradiction between previous U.S. claims that Iran’s nuclear sites had been completely destroyed and his renewed talk of an “immediate threat,” Trump said: “We destroyed them. But that doesn’t mean that with the right equipment you can’t dig down and get back to it. We don’t want that.”
This part of Trump’s remarks effectively shows that while the White House continues to repeat the claim that Iran’s nuclear infrastructure was severely damaged, it is also still presenting the file as an active and reversible threat.
Oil, War, and Global Markets
Trump also commented on Iranian oil exports: “I just want as much oil in the system as possible… Whatever little money Iran makes is not going to make a difference in this war.”
That position comes at a moment when the crisis between Iran and the United States has become one of the most sensitive points of intersection between regional security and the global energy market. Any threat against energy infrastructure immediately reverberates through oil prices, equities, and bond markets.
A man holds an anti-Israeli poster of the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, during the funeral of Iranian security chief Ali Larijani and victims of the IRIS Dena warship at Enghelab Square, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, March 18, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)
Was Trump’s ‘Five-Day Window’ a Real Delay — or a Strategy to Manage Oil Shock and Psychological Warfare?
If Trump’s remarks are read not merely at the level of rhetoric, but in the broader context of timing, energy markets, and narrative warfare, the five-day deadline he reportedly set before a possible strike on Iran’s critical infrastructure may represent far more than a simple pause or full retreat.
It may instead be part of a multi-layered strategy designed to simultaneously manage the battlefield, the oil market, and public perception.
One serious possibility is that the five-day window is not simply a diplomatic pause, but a calculated effort to push the crisis toward the end of the trading week — when global oil markets are closed.
If a strike were to occur at that point, the initial shock could be partially softened by the two-day market closure, reducing the immediate psychological and speculative spike.
In other words, if an attack happens while markets are open, oil prices could react sharply and instantly; if it happens over the weekend, part of that panic is absorbed during the closure, making Monday’s reopening potentially less explosive.
That is why some analysts do not see Trump’s five-day deadline as merely a negotiation period, but as a carefully timed mechanism to manage the market effects of war, especially at a moment when oil prices themselves have become one of the central variables of the conflict.
People attend a gathering to support Iran’s new supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, March 9, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)
In this equation, the closer tensions move toward threats against the Strait of Hormuz and regional energy infrastructure, the greater the chance of a major oil price surge — a variable that can serve as leverage for Tehran, but also as a serious economic and electoral liability for Washington.
From the same angle, Trump’s sudden claim of “constructive talks” may also be understood as part of a broader psychological operation aimed at reshaping the perceived trajectory of the conflict.
At a time when some assessments suggest Iran has recently managed to create a degree of battlefield initiative and effective deterrence, abruptly promoting the narrative that “a deal is close” or that “Iran called first” could function as a tool to disrupt the opposing side’s psychological cohesion, project division, and recast a position of deterrence as one of retreat or softness.
In this context, some informed sources in Tehran have stressed that no actual negotiations have taken place, and that what has occurred amounts only to the exchange of messages through intermediaries. According to those accounts, Iran’s response has been consistent: the continuation of defense until sufficient deterrence is achieved.
Alongside this version, some regional analysts argue that once Trump concluded that striking Iran’s energy infrastructure could trigger a direct and costly retaliation, he stepped back from the initial threat and recalibrated his objectives — shifting from a “strategic blow” to crisis management and energy-route stabilization.
The picture is increasingly clear: what is unfolding is not just a nuclear bargaining round, nor merely a simple military threat.
It is a three-front war being fought simultaneously across:
- The battlefield
- The oil market
- The psychology of public perception
In that context, Trump’s latest remarks on Iran should not be read as just another interview. They should be understood as part of a far more complex struggle — one aimed at controlling the narrative, containing energy shock, and shifting the psychological balance in the middle of an escalating crisis.
Trump Delays Iran Strike, Tehran Denies Talks
WANA (Mar 23) – On the 24th day of a war that began on February 28 with U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran, Donald Trump—who on Sunday issued a 48-hour ultimatum threatening to “destroy” Iran’s power infrastructure if the Strait of Hormuz was not fully reopened—has stepped back from that position, announcing a delay in […]
