By Yang Tianzi
At a critical moment when the world was holding its breath over the possibility of a U.S. military strike on Iran, the Middle East situation took a dramatic turn. Multiple Iranian state media outlets reported on Feb. 2 that President Pezeshkian has ordered the launch of negotiations with the United States over a nuclear agreement. This major shift comes against a backdrop of intense pressure—President Trump’s threats of military action, large-scale U.S. troop deployments in the Persian Gulf, and rumors of a “decapitation” plan targeting the Iranian regime—signaling that Tehran has chosen a pragmatic path amid severe internal and external crises.
Iranian president orders start of nuclear talks with the US
Fars News Agency reported on Feb. 2, citing an unnamed government source, that President Pezeshkian had instructed officials to begin nuclear negotiations with the United States, though no specific timetable was disclosed. The report was subsequently published by the government-run Iran newspaper and the reformist daily Shargh, indicating a coordinated move authorized at the highest levels of Tehran’s leadership.
In a country where media is tightly controlled, the simultaneous release of the same message by outlets with differing political leanings clearly suggests tacit approval or direct instruction from top decision-makers, including the office of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. This method is typically used to “test the waters”—floating information through anonymous sources, gauging domestic and international reactions, and then adjusting policy accordingly.
Notably, just days earlier, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had taken a hardline stance, declaring that Iran’s armed forces had their “fingers on the trigger,” while the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced live-fire drills in the Strait of Hormuz. Such a 180-degree shift—from confrontation to active negotiation—in a matter of days points to significant strategic calculations behind the scenes.
For the best of our weekly content！
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Check your email to complete sign up
At a Feb. 2 press conference, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei provided more specific details. He said Iranian authorities were drafting the methods and framework for negotiations, expected to be finalized within days. More importantly, he confirmed that “countries in the region are serving as intermediaries for message exchanges,” indicating that indirect communication channels between Washington and Tehran are already in place.
Baghaei stated: “Several key issues have been addressed. We are carefully reviewing and finalizing the details of each stage of the diplomatic process and hope to complete this within a few days. This discussion concerns the method and framework of negotiations.” Such cautious wording suggests that while Iran has agreed to talks, it is still meticulously calculating the conditions.
As for the identity of the regional mediators, analysts widely speculate that Oman, Qatar, or Iraq—countries maintaining relations with both sides—are likely candidates. These states have played similar roles in past U.S.-Iran crises and possess both experience and credibility in mediation.
The multiple effects of Trump’s maximum pressure
Iran’s sudden turn toward negotiations is largely driven by the Trump administration’s credible display of military threat. Unlike what Tehran views as hollow warnings from previous U.S. administrations, Trump has demonstrated resolve through concrete actions. Around 50,000 U.S. troops are currently stationed across Middle Eastern bases, the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group has arrived in the Persian Gulf, at least 15 F-35 fighter jets have been deployed to Jordan, and dozens of reconnaissance and refueling aircraft continue to pour into the region.
More critically, multiple authoritative sources have confirmed that the U.S. military seriously considered launching strikes around Feb. 1 and even formulated specific “regime decapitation” plans. Although no attack ultimately occurred, the threat was clearly seen as real and credible by Iranian decision-makers. Revelations by former senior U.S. intelligence officials regarding “regime change” intentions directly threatened the survival of Iran’s leadership.
Trump’s strategic ambiguity on Jan. 30 also carried significant psychological impact. He refused to specify a deadline, saying only that “that deadline—only Iran knows it.” This forced Tehran to endure immense pressure without knowing the “red line,” while allowing Washington to retain flexibility to claim that the deadline had arrived at any moment.
Escalating sanctions create suffocating economic pressure
Alongside military threats, the United States has continued to intensify economic pressure. On Jan. 30, the Treasury Department updated its Iran sanctions list, adding seven individuals and two entities, including Interior Minister Momeni and senior commanders within the Revolutionary Guard’s intelligence apparatus.
Since Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018 and reinstated sanctions, Iran’s economy has suffered severe damage. The rial has sharply depreciated, inflation remains high, unemployment has risen, and living standards have declined markedly. These economic hardships were the root cause of the large-scale protests that erupted in late December 2025.
The Trump administration has also skillfully leveraged Iran’s internal turmoil. Since late December 2025, protests triggered by currency devaluation quickly evolved into a fundamental challenge to the legitimacy of the theocratic regime. According to human rights organizations, more than 6,300 deaths have been confirmed in the crackdown, with the total possibly exceeding 25,000.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the Iranian “regime may be at its weakest point in history,” unable to address protesters’ core grievances as “the economy is collapsing across the board.” Under such internal and external strain, a large-scale U.S. air campaign would not only destroy key facilities but could also ignite a new wave of protests threatening regime survival.
Why Iran chose to compromise
At its core, Iran’s decision to compromise stems from unprecedented threats to regime survival. Externally, the unparalleled U.S. military buildup and “decapitation” threats directly target the regime’s core. Internally, although protests have been brutally suppressed, social discontent remains a dormant volcano that could erupt again at any time.
As a relatively moderate, reformist president, Pezeshkian understands that a war with the United States at this moment would be militarily untenable and could allow domestic opposition forces to rise up, leading to internal collapse. Choosing negotiations not only avoids military strikes but could also ease economic pressure through sanctions relief and calm public anger.
Iran’s international isolation is also deepening. The European Union has designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, prompting Iran to summon all EU ambassadors in Tehran in protest. Baghaei called this merely “the mildest response,” but it cannot mask the breakdown in Iran–Europe relations.
Having lost Europe’s traditional support on the nuclear issue, Iran faces the United States in even greater isolation. Given the Revolutionary Guard’s central role in Iran’s politics and economy, its terrorist designation is not merely symbolic—it could trigger substantial financial and trade restrictions.
Negotiation prospects: core disputes remain enormous
Despite deep antagonism, the U.S. and Iran do share certain interests. For Trump, resolving the Iran issue through negotiations avoids a prolonged war and showcases his “art of the deal” in foreign policy. He has repeatedly stated his hope that the U.S. and Iran will reach an agreement, signaling a genuine preference for a diplomatic solution.
For Iran, sanctions relief through negotiations could ease economic pressure, quell domestic unrest, and stabilize the regime. Pezeshkian, a reformist, pledged to improve relations with the West upon his election in 2024. Choosing negotiations in the current crisis aligns with both his political stance and Iran’s practical interests.
However, differences on core issues remain vast. According to U.S. officials, any new agreement would go far beyond the 2015 deal, requiring Iran to halt uranium enrichment, restrict its missile program, and cease support for proxy armed groups across the Middle East. These demands strike at every core element of Iran’s security strategy and are viewed in Tehran as tantamount to “terms of surrender.”
While Iran has agreed to talks, it has set conditions. Araghchi previously stated that Iran welcomes an agreement only on an “equal footing, without coercion, threats, or intimidation”—a stance clearly at odds with Washington’s current high-pressure strategy. Finding a balance between “equal negotiations” and “maximum pressure” will be key to the talks’ success or failure.
As the framework for U.S.–Iran talks takes shape, EU–Iran relations are deteriorating. The timing of the EU’s terrorist designation of the Revolutionary Guard is sensitive and could have complex effects on negotiations.
On one hand, it underscores that Western pressure on Iran is comprehensive, not just from the United States, potentially pushing Tehran toward compromise. On the other, it may deepen Iran’s sense of isolation and encirclement, prompting a tougher negotiating stance or hardline responses toward Europe to appease domestic hawks.