An analysis of Washington’s dual-track behavior shows that military threats and performative expressions of sympathy with protesters serve a larger objective: breaking Iran’s national will and compelling it to accept demands that fundamentally undermine the country’s sovereignty and national security.
If a leader who, in flagrant violation of international law, ordered the assassination of a country’s senior military commander now claims to support the people of that same country, a basic question must be asked: what is the nature of this “support”? Is it anything other than a continuation of the same pressure game in pursuit of Washington’s geopolitical objectives? This question is the key to understanding the logic behind one of the most contradictory postures in U.S. foreign policy. Donald Trump—who, by unilaterally withdrawing from the JCPOA and intensifying the economic siege, effectively launched a full-scale economic war against the Iranian people—at certain junctures portrays himself as a benefactor of the people and a critic of Iran’s governing system. Yet a closer examination of this dual approach reveals a strategic truth: the combination of threats with expressions of sympathy is not a sign of a change in course or a humanitarian concern, but a new link in the very same “maximum pressure” strategy. Its ultimate aim is not helping the people, but pressuring the government of the Islamic Republic to retreat at the negotiating table on the core pillars of Iran’s power and national security—namely, its peaceful nuclear program and its missile defensive capability. This strategy seeks to create an apparent rift between nation and state, raise the cost of resistance, and shatter national resolve.
The first indication of the performative nature of these claims is the stark contradiction between rhetoric and action. Trump presents himself on social media as a supporter of the Iranian people, yet in practice his administration’s policy has been to intensify crippling sanctions against Iran. These sanctions, imposed under the banner of “behavior change,” in reality place direct pressure on the livelihoods of Iranian citizens and make access to medicine and essential goods more difficult. If improving people’s lives were truly a priority, one would at least expect a reduction in the severity of this hostile policy. The absence of such intent—together with his similar record toward movements such as the Hong Kong protesters—demonstrates that his supportive discourse has never gone beyond a propaganda tool to justify pressure. The ultimate goal is not support, but the imposition of greater suffering to weaken national will.
This performance serves as a cover for a deeper strategic intent. At the underlying level, military threats are analyzed within the logic of America’s hostile deal-making. Actions such as the assassination of Martyr General Haj Qasem Soleimani in 2020 [1398 SH] and the initiation of the 12-day war in June 2025 [Khordad 1404 SH] were concrete manifestations of this approach—actions aimed not at military victory, but at testing national resilience and assessing Iran’s defensive responses under maximum pressure. The key point emphasized by strategic analysts is that U.S. behavior, even at the height of limited clashes, showed that Washington did not seek all-out confrontation. Rather, it sought to create an atmosphere of intimidation to impose negotiating terms from a position of power. This display of force, paired with offers of dialogue, exposes a calculated strategy: the application of controlled coercion to create leverage, without bearing the costs of a real war. The principal objective of U.S. strategists has never been improving people’s lives, but containing Iran’s defensive and strategic capabilities, including its peaceful nuclear program and missile power. Thus, threats and claims of sympathy are two sides of the same coin, sharing a common end: forcing Iran’s retreat in security negotiations. Even some of America’s regional allies, fearful of the consequences of war, have at times opposed these threats—an indication that Washington’s closest partners also view them more as a dangerous pressure gamble than as a serious policy line.
Although some in Washington regard this pressure combined with expressions of sympathy as an effective tactic, a realistic assessment shows that the strategy will fail. First, it stands as tangible proof of the Islamic Republic’s discourse regarding the hostility of the global arrogance [Iranian term for Western imperialist powers]. This does not serve as a pretext, but as a reason for greater vigilance and unity among the Iranian people. Four decades of Resistance have shown that such external posturing strengthens, rather than weakens, internal cohesion. Second, regional history has demonstrated that the support of powers such as the United States is fleeting and transactional; reliance on it entails high risk and provides a fragile foundation for any movement. Ultimately, it is Iran’s national will and identity that determine the country’s trajectory. Any attempt to align popular movements with external agendas only leads to public suspicion and the isolation of those movements. Accordingly, the outcome of such a Washington-led strategy, at best, is an ineffective spectacle that merely deepens the rift between the two nations and reinforces Iran’s national determination to defend its sovereignty.
The roots of this behavior lie in the transactional worldview of America’s political leadership. In this outlook, foreign policy is a marketplace for unilateral, force-based bargaining. Concepts such as democracy and human rights possess no intrinsic value; they are employed solely to justify power objectives. The central axis is the pursuit of immediate material gains and the display of victory. Consequently, all instruments—from sanctions and assassination to claims of support—are devoid of moral content and function merely as pieces in a power game. From this perspective, claims of supporting groups inside Iran are a “tradable commodity,” to be sold in exchange for concessions in sensitive areas of Iran’s defense and security, or retained as leverage for threats. This short-term, deal-centric mindset reflects the absence of a constructive strategy for West Asia. In their calculations, regional stability and the fate of nations are sacrificed to momentary cost–benefit equations. Thus, Trump’s claims of support are an inseparable component of a pressure-and-coercion game designed to advance hegemonic objectives. In this equation, people and their demands are disposable tools in the hands of those whose ultimate aim is to impose their will on others.
In sum, the promises and threats of American leaders do not stem from principles, but from the deliberate execution of a multilayered strategy. Within this strategy, supportive discourse is, at its core, transformed into an instrument for bargaining and pressure against Iran’s sovereignty. The principal consequence of this approach is the erosion of America’s symbolic capital—namely, the credibility and moral legitimacy of its global claims. When human rights become bargaining chips in the hands of politicians with records of assassination and drug sanctions, the moral veneer of their discourse collapses. Over the long term, this strategic self-sabotage will produce three definitive failures for Washington: the loss of trust among allies who see themselves as victims of dangerous and destabilizing games; the strengthening of the discourse of Resistance and the rival’s firm resolve to enhance deterrence and refuse capitulation to bullying—thereby redefining regional stability not through imposition, but through a balance of power; and the absolute, historical discrediting of any U.S. claim to supportiveness in the eyes of the world’s free nations. Accordingly, this strategy not only fails to break the impasse, but—by exposing the instrumental nature of American power—undermines its claimed legitimacy in the region and paves the way for new models of international relations grounded in respect for national sovereignty and justice.
