SAEDNEWS: The United States’ Recent Stances and Actions Toward Iran—from Donald Trump’s Contradictory Statements to Military Moves and Economic Pressure—Clearly Reflect the Continuation of a Deliberate Strategy Based on ‘Strategic Ambiguity.
According to SAEDNEWS qouting Shargh news, U.S. Strategy Toward Iran: Strategic Ambiguity in Action
Contradictory Signals from Washington:
Trump signals willingness to negotiate with Iran while simultaneously issuing explicit military threats.
Announces 25% tariffs on countries trading with Iran and deployment of a “massive” military force to the region.
Diplomatic Messaging vs. Reality:
Special envoy Steve Witkoff confirms no formal talks yet, but communication channels remain active.
Washington balances diplomacy with pressure, keeping Iran engaged but uncertain.
Economic and Military Pressure:
Treasury Secretary Scott Bennett emphasizes sanctions as a tool to influence Iran without military action.
U.S. aircraft carrier strike group, including USS Abraham Lincoln, moves toward the Middle East.
Additional air defense deployments under consideration to deter threats.
Regional Reactions:
Turkey opposes any U.S. military intervention, warns against encirclement, and urges serious talks with Tehran.
Regional actors are concerned about miscalculation and heightened tensions.
Strategic Ambiguity as Policy:
Trump uses ambiguity deliberately to:
Maintain maximum pressure on Tehran.
Deter regional actors.
Keep negotiation options open.
Military displays serve as “a stick over the negotiation table,” not a prelude to war.
Expert Analysis (Mohammad Ali Vakili):
Trump seeks the “lowest-cost scenario,” preferring negotiations over costly military conflict.
Iran’s complex, multi-layered situation explains simultaneous contradictory positions.
Ambiguity is a calculated strategy, not confusion.
Implications:
Short-term deterrence achieved, but long-term uncertainty and regional instability increase.
U.S. approach complicates Tehran’s decision-making while preventing a coordinated response.