Iran is preparing for all scenarios with an unpredictable American president. Diplomacy is its preferred option amidst public, economic, and military pressures and given the imbalance of military power. The experience of the 12-day war, especially its final day after U.S. intervention (referring to a recent limited military confrontation involving Iran’s regional proxies), puts Iran in the position of rejecting war despite declaring its readiness for it.

Within this reality, lines of communication have reopened between Tehran and Washington.

A pivotal statement was made by U.S. President Donald Trump when he said: “Iranian leaders have reached out to the United States to negotiate, and there are arrangements for a meeting, but we might act before it takes place.” Trump’s remarks drew a clear picture and explained many elements regarding Iran’s present and future situation, even if his words may carry maneuvering and deceptive tactics.

Pressures before negotiations

There is a belief that the United States is exerting maximum pressure on Iran to reach an agreement under American terms. The latest direct negotiations between the two sides failed, and since then the pressure has intensified, starting with U.S. and UN sanctions, passing through the June war, and reaching the widespread protests sweeping Iran under political and economic slogans.

Trump said that Iran has “grown tired” of American strikes, and what he meant by this was the previously mentioned scene. But the American president did not hint at toppling the Iranian regime. On the contrary, he said that a negotiating meeting is being prepared with it, but after a potential move, likely a military one given reports of exceptional preparations by both sides, and Trump’s latest post in which he saluted his soldiers and said “this is only the beginning.”

The conclusion of this picture is that Trump wants to negotiate with Iran, but only after exhausting it politically, economically, and militarily, and imposing existential threats on it, in order to pull it into negotiations under American terms and with Iranian intentions to succeed in order to avoid worse scenarios modeled after the experiences of Syria and Venezuela, and amid an American and Israeli surplus of power and an Iranian weakness that has reached its limits.

Iran's choices

Iran’s desire to negotiate, which was declared by Trump and by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, means that Tehran is dealing with the matter with political realism after learning from the lessons of Syria and Venezuela.

The academic and researcher Mohammad Moussa told Annahar that the diplomatic option “is open and the space for dialogue exists,” pointing to mediation options in this context and to the roles that Qatar and the Sultanate of Oman usually play in such situations.

But the question lies in the substance of these negotiations in light of international shifts. The latest American-Iranian talks failed, so what is the possible common ground and what might change in this round? Moussa speaks of four points that the talks are likely to revolve around, the first being the nuclear program, then the ballistic program, Iran’s allies in the region, and adding to them the American guarantees.

Negotiations over what?

Regarding the details of the negotiations, the United States along with Israel insist on stopping the nuclear program, and therefore the negotiations will address enrichment levels, according to Moussa.

Iran “may show flexibility” regarding its allies in the region, especially after the changes that have occurred over the past two years, while the ballistic program remains something Tehran insists on as a guarantee, in addition to the American guarantees required to avoid wars and to prevent withdrawal from the agreement.

What about military options?

However, Trump's statements included a message about the potential for a military strike against Iran when he said "we might act" before the negotiations. The goal of a military attack is to increase the pressure level on Iran and improve the position of the American conditions.

Moussa speaks about the gap in capabilities between Iran on one side and Israel and the United States on the other, but he also points to Iran’s missile capabilities that targeted sensitive sites in Israel.

In the end, Iran stands before a set of choices, the best of which is still bitter, since the negotiations were preceded by incidents aimed at dragging it into talks from a position of weakness to impose conditions it previously rejected, while war would not be balanced given the difference in capabilities. Therefore, attention is focused on what Trump will do in terms of the “move” he spoke about, and the communication Iran requested, and tomorrow is not far for those waiting.

A demonstration supporting Iran's protests in Germany (AFP).