Reyhane Hejazi - Speaking on the sidelines of the Davos meeting and coinciding with the signing of a charter for what he called the “Gaza Strip Peace Council,” the U.S. president said Washington had helped bring eight wars around the world to an end and that an “unprecedented peace” had taken shape in the Middle East. He also claimed that Iran is seeking dialogue and that the United States is prepared for such talks—a statement that, in the very same speech, was coupled with threats of military action, the imposition of a 25 percent tariff on Iran’s trading partners, and references to “a massive military force” moving toward the region.
The simultaneous pairing of an invitation to dialogue with explicit threats may not be new in Trump’s rhetoric, but it once again raises a familiar question: is what Washington calls “diplomacy” in practice anything more than a rebranding of pressure politics?
Trump went on to repeat his claim that Iran’s nuclear capability had been “destroyed” and that Tehran should have reached an agreement before last year’s military strike. This comes as Iranian officials maintain that the U.S. attack occurred precisely at a time when diplomatic channels were active. In the view of observers, this narrative gap—between professed readiness for talks and the resort to force—sends not only a contradictory message to Tehran, but also an ambiguous signal to America’s allies.
The U.S. president also described the Gaza Strip Peace Council as an institution with “historic potential,” saying it benefits from the presence of the “best leaders in the world.” Yet the refusal of several countries to join the initiative has raised serious doubts about its true nature and effectiveness. As the war in Gaza continues and the humanitarian crisis deepens, some analysts see the council less as a genuine institutional effort for peace and more as part of Washington’s attempt to redefine its regional role after its unconditional support for Israel.
In another part of his remarks, Trump once again threatened Iran, saying that if certain domestic actions were taken—including the enforcement of judicial rulings against individuals labeled as terrorists in recent unrest—the United States would respond militarily. At the same time, he announced the imminent implementation of heavy tariffs on countries that trade with Iran, a move reminiscent of the “maximum pressure” policy of his first term. Still, Trump insisted that he would prefer not to use military force and that the path of dialogue should remain open.
According to analysts, this blend of hard threats and vague diplomatic messaging is a hallmark of Trump’s familiar strategy—one aimed simultaneously at domestic public opinion and foreign audiences. His statements on Ukraine, China, and Venezuela can be understood within the same framework: a president seeking to reconstruct the image of a “great mediator,” even if the tools for doing so involve simplifying complex crises and applying pressure at the same time.
When it comes to Iran, however, the issue goes beyond repetitive rhetoric. Experience from recent years shows that invitations to dialogue, when accompanied by sanctions, threats, and a one-sided narrative of reality, neither build trust nor pave the way for diplomacy. From this perspective, what emerges from Trump’s latest remarks is not a new initiative for peace, but a continuation of the familiar pattern of “diplomacy from a position of strength”—a model that has been tested repeatedly and, at least in Iran’s case, has failed to deliver lasting results.