US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth has stated that developments are moving in the direction Washington wants regarding Iran, while reiterating that the United States remains prepared to return to war if necessary. He also reaffirmed the Trump administration’s commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, Iran’s Foreign Ministry has confirmed that messages continue to be exchanged with Washington as part of negotiations aimed at ending the conflict. However, these statements raise important questions. What exactly are the developments that Hegseth claims are moving in Washington’s favour? And are the communications acknowledged by Tehran paving the way for a broader understanding, or are they merely a mechanism for managing the crisis?
Washington’s Core Demands Remain Unchanged
There is little indication that the United States is preparing to abandon its demands in negotiations with Iran. While President Donald Trump occasionally makes remarks that appear to omit one condition or another, this should not be interpreted as evidence that Washington has removed any of its fundamental requirements from the negotiating table.
The US administration remains fully aware that its primary demands revolve around three central issues:
- Iran’s nuclear programme.
- Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities.
- Iranian aligned groups and influence across the region.
A fourth condition has since been added: the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz under the same conditions that existed before the outbreak of war.
All of these demands remain on the table. Trump cannot simply abandon them, because doing so would amount to an admission of American defeat. This is not merely a matter of presidential preference. The broader national security establishment, including military leadership, advisers, and decision-makers, is unlikely to accept such an outcome.
The Importance of Hormuz and Regional Credibility
Current discussions may focus on priorities, such as reopening the Strait of Hormuz before addressing other issues. However, this does not mean Trump has the flexibility to discard the remaining demands.
Doing so would carry significant consequences.
First, it would be viewed as a betrayal of America’s allies in the Gulf region.
Second, it would undermine US credibility as a global superpower.
Third, it would create space for Iran to expand its regional influence.
Tehran understands that Washington is operating within a limited timeframe before the start of the World Cup. Iranian negotiators may therefore seek to gain time through delayed responses or by introducing counter-demands.
Such tactics, however, could eventually produce a diplomatic deadlock. If that occurs, a sudden US military strike against Iran cannot be ruled out. Yet even if such a strike were carried out, the question remains: what strategic objectives could it realistically achieve?
Diplomacy and Military Pressure as Parallel Tracks
American military messaging directed at Iran does not necessarily signal an imminent military operation.
Instead, these threats function as part of a broader strategy of maximum pressure.
The United States is simultaneously pursuing diplomatic engagement and military coercion. Diplomatic initiatives are accompanied by military pressure, while military threats are balanced with ongoing diplomatic activity.
This dual track approach has become a defining feature of Trump’s strategy.
Whenever Washington speaks the language of diplomacy, it leaves open the possibility of military action. Whenever it escalates militarily, it keeps the diplomatic channel alive.
A review of recent months shows that Trump has consistently operated along these parallel tracks.
This does not mean that the United States lacks military options. Rather, the prolonged state of uncertainty without a final agreement presents serious risks.
The situation is uncomfortable for Iran, where the possibility remains that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard could target a US naval vessel, triggering an unintended escalation.
At the same time, the current environment is not ideal for Washington either.
Why a Major War Appears Increasingly Unlikely
The United States believes it still possesses sufficient tools to pressure Iran without resorting to a major military confrontation.
That assessment, however, is not absolute.
A crisis could erupt at any moment.
Even so, any future escalation would likely remain limited and tied to negotiations, to push both sides towards an agreement rather than reopen a large scale military conflict.
This is not solely because Trump faces significant political commitments and deadlines.
It is also because the prospect of a major military confrontation appears increasingly exhausted as a strategic option.
Are Ballistic Missiles and Regional Influence Still Part of the Talks?
Some observers argue that the reported US-Iranian memorandum of understanding, described as a framework for future negotiations, appears to grant significant concessions to Iran.
According to this view, the focus has shifted primarily to the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s nuclear programme, while issues such as ballistic missiles and Iranian regional influence have largely disappeared from the agenda.
Such conclusions are premature.
The information currently circulating remains incomplete and unverified.
No one outside the negotiating process knows whether these reports accurately reflect what is being discussed.
The only available information comes from statements issued by Iranian officials and contradictory statements issued by American officials.
No mediator or neutral party has publicly disclosed what has actually been discussed at the negotiating table or what messages are being exchanged through intermediaries.
The Gap Between Iranian Claims and Strategic Reality
A review of Iranian official statements reveals a tendency towards highly exaggerated rhetoric.
Iranian officials frequently claim overwhelming military success, including assertions that American bases throughout the region have been destroyed and that Iran achieved a decisive victory in the war.
Yet several realities remain difficult to ignore.
US military aircraft continue to operate freely in Iranian airspace.
Iranian air power has been largely absent from the conflict.
Iran’s naval capabilities have reportedly suffered significant damage.
Iran remains under extensive sanctions and now faces additional maritime restrictions affecting its ports.
The conflict is taking place on Iranian territory and in its surrounding environment, not on American soil or near US territory.
As for American bases in the region, Washington had reportedly evacuated many facilities before the war in anticipation of Iranian retaliation. As a result, Iranian missile strikes frequently targeted empty bases and, in some cases, economic and civilian infrastructure across Gulf states rather than military targets linked directly to Israel.
Contradictory Signals From Tehran
Further questions arise from recent statements by Mohsen Rezaei, an adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader.
Rezaei accused President Trump of undermining the diplomatic process for a third time by maintaining maritime pressure on Iran and presenting what he described as excessive demands during negotiations.
He also insisted on the immediate release of $12 billion in frozen Iranian assets, declaring that no future phase of negotiations could begin until that condition was met.
At the same time, Iranian sources have denied reports suggesting that any draft agreement includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz without fees or restrictions. They have also rejected claims that the destruction of Iran’s nuclear materials is currently included in the negotiating framework.
These statements raise serious questions about Hegseth’s assertion that developments are moving in the direction desired by Washington.
Yet they also raise another question.
If Tehran has indeed rejected all major American demands, why does it continue exchanging messages with Washington?
That question has become even more relevant following remarks by Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei, who confirmed that communications between the two sides remain ongoing despite the apparent gulf separating their positions.
