Once again, a familiar pattern is playing out in US-Iran tensions: one side talks of diplomacy paired with threats of force. And when Washington treats the standoff as a strategy, it only makes an unstable region more dangerous and increases the odds of a wider conflict. If the stated goal is de-escalation, why keep turning the negotiating table into a launchpad confrontation?

Trump casts himself as the dealmaker, as if pressure automatically yields persuasion. Meanwhile, his partner in crime, Netanyahu, insists every negotiation is a trap unless Iran surrenders completely. Together, they reduce the region to a bargaining chip, one misstep away from full-scale war.

Yet Tehran has drawn a hard line: nuclear talks and nothing else. That stance, in turn, puts it at odds with Washington and Tel Aviv, which want Iran’s missile program and regional influence on the table.

That nuclear-only track is precisely what keeps Netanyahu up at night. For him, any deal that sidesteps ballistic missiles and proxies is unacceptable and he worries Trump will settle for a partial win and sell it as historic.

As a result, the issue is no longer only US-Iran friction but a US-Israel dispute over what “success” actually means.

This week’s developments have widened the split. After meeting Netanyahu, Trump said nothing definitive was decided and again called for negotiations. However, Washington is still stacking its military posture with the USS Abraham Lincoln and accompanying destroyers across the region.

Several reports also indicate that the Pentagon is preparing to send another carrier strike group to the Middle East. This raises a question whether this is a path to a deal or a choreography for escalation? Either way, it signals that talks are unfolding under overwhelming force. In other words, this is diplomacy as a deadline not an alternative to military action.

READ: US sent thousands of Starlink terminals to Iran after January protest crackdown: Report

To make matters worse, Trump just signed an executive order threatening a 25% tariff on Iran’s trading partners. That is not a sledgehammer aimed only at Tehran but at anyone in the global market who refuses to treat US policy as universal command.

And this is where the Iraq comparison starts to rot US foreign policy. Iraq in 2003 was sold with the false certainty of a war as a “clean” solution. Instead, the result was a catastrophe that still shapes the region today.

In doing so, Washington ignores Baghdad’s core lesson: when leaders get high on their own rhetoric, they stop weighing risks and start acting tough for show.

But Iran is not Iraq. It is larger, more sophisticated and better positioned to retaliate across multiple fronts. Therefore, a “limited” strike rarely stays limited once missiles fly, shipping lanes are disrupted and proxies respond.

Iran is not Venezuela either despite the myth that maximum pressure is a shortcut to regime collapse. Sanctions helped grind Caracas down but assuming Tehran will buckle the same way ignores the reality of state survival.

If Trump believes Iran can be squeezed into submission, then he misreads how nationalism and external pressure often rally societies around the flag. And even when economies suffer and protests surge, regimes do not fall on Washington’s timetable, especially when leaders can blame outsiders. Iran’s recent protests and the harsh crackdowns that followed show how pressure can harden the state rather than break it.

Even so, what makes this standoff volatile is that a workable nuclear deal may exist but just not the kind Netanyahu wants or Trump could boast as a total victory. Iranian officials have floated diluting its 60% highly enriched uranium if sanctions are fully lifted, which would be a serious trade-off of nuclear steps for economic relief.

Whether one trusts Tehran is beside the point. Rather, the problem stems from Washington being pressured by Tel Aviv demanding “everything”—nuclear rollback, missile limits and proxy disarmament before offering “anything.” That is not negotiation; it is a deadlock engineered to make war look inevitable.

In effect, Netanyahu is setting diplomacy up to fail. By insisting that Iran’s missiles and proxy networks be part of the bargain, he ensures that no negotiation can succeed.

Consequently, the result is permanent escalation. When no deal is ever good enough, every round of talks becomes a countdown to the next strike. Worst, it tempts Netanyahu to take unilateral actions that sabotage diplomacy before it produces an outcome he dislikes.

READ: US surveillance aircraft operate near Iranian border amid tensions

That is why the Iraq and Venezuela mindset is so corrosive. Trump treats Iran like a vending machine where he can simply insert sanctions and threats and expect surrender.

And by demanding Tehran’s humiliation, he and Netanyahu make a stable outcome impossible. Escalation is a one-way door and once the fire is lit, no leader can control how far it spreads.

Diplomacy, however, is a fragile process and it will collapse if it is used as a political accessory rather than a genuine path to de-escalation.

Iran is not Iraq, ready to be toppled by a crafted narrative. And it is definitely not Venezuela either, waiting to be squeezed into submission. It is a state with real capabilities, regional partners and a proven ability to widen conflicts when cornered. 

Which is precisely why Iran will not simply collapse. It can retaliate in ways that inflict harm far beyond the region. Israel may urge the US to act but the ultimate call rests with Trump, who either pursues real diplomacy or ignites a war that once started, will ignore anyone’s political image.

OPINION: Ceasefire in name, war in fact: The greatest deal or the oldest trick?

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor