Washington Separates Hormuz from the Nuclear File and Enters Negotiations with Its Biggest Military Threat

BETH | B

U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the United States is moving toward concluding two separate agreements with Iran. The first would address the Strait of Hormuz, while the second would focus on dismantling Iran’s nuclear program.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on his way to the White House, Trump said Washington and Tehran were discussing the format of negotiations scheduled to begin Monday evening. He did not specify their location or the participating parties, stressing that the United States could take military action whenever it chose.

He confirmed that U.S. forces had been preparing to carry out what he described as “the largest attack on Iran since World War II,” before the operation was postponed to give diplomacy a chance.

U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth reiterated that postponing the strike had not affected military readiness. He said U.S. forces remained on alert at levels not seen since World War II and were fully prepared to act as soon as the order was given.

An Agreement of Necessity

Separating the two files reveals an important shift in the management of the crisis. The Strait of Hormuz represents an urgent priority linked to freedom of navigation, energy security, and the global economy. The nuclear file, however, requires lengthier negotiations involving dismantlement, inspections, guarantees, and sanctions.

Washington is therefore attempting to secure a rapid agreement that reopens the strait and eases pressure on energy markets without waiting for the completion of the more complicated nuclear settlement. Positive expectations were quickly reflected in oil prices, which fell sharply following the announcement that the attack had been postponed.

Negotiating Through Force

The U.S. administration is not presenting the postponed strike as a retreat. Instead, it is portraying it as a temporary decision made from a position of strength. Hegseth’s statement therefore complemented Trump’s message: negotiations have begun, but military force remains in place.

This means that the military threat is no longer an alternative to negotiations. It has become part of their structure. Washington is placing two agreements before Tehran, backed by a military force ready to move from pressure to attack.

The real test will not be whether negotiations take place, but whether three questions can be answered:

Will Iran officially confirm its acceptance of the two agreements?

What exactly does Washington mean by dismantling Iran’s nuclear program?

And what guarantee can prevent the war from resuming if either track falters?

For now, the window for a solution appears open. But it is not yet a window toward complete peace. It is a diplomatic reprieve guarded by military force.

Trump Announces Talks for Monday Evening as Tehran Denies They Exist Before the Scheduled Time

U.S. President Donald Trump announced that negotiations between the United States and Iran would begin Monday evening, saying the two sides were discussing the format of the talks without disclosing their location or participants.

Trump said Washington was moving toward two separate agreements. The first would address the Strait of Hormuz, while the second would focus on dismantling Iran’s nuclear program. He added that postponing the military attack had created a new opportunity for diplomacy.

Hours after Trump’s statement, Iran’s Foreign Ministry denied that negotiations with the United States were under way.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said the talks currently taking place were limited to discussions with Oman concerning temporary navigation arrangements in the Strait of Hormuz. He stressed that no direct negotiations with Washington were under way.

A Denial Before the Scheduled Time

From a chronological perspective, the Iranian statement does not categorically contradict Trump’s announcement.

The U.S. president spoke of negotiations scheduled to begin Monday evening, while Tehran said no negotiations were under way at the time of its statement.

Between the two formulations lies a wide linguistic space that allows Iran to deny what is happening in the present without closing the door to what may occur hours later.

Indirect contacts may already be taking place through mediators and may be described by Washington as the beginning of negotiations. Iran, however, may refuse to give them that status before the parties, venue, and guarantees have been agreed upon.

The Power of Words

Iran has long used language as part of its management of conflict. It distinguishes between contact and negotiation, between direct talks and messages conveyed through mediators, and between discussing proposals and agreeing to sit at the negotiating table.

Through these distinctions, Tehran can receive messages and discuss terms while simultaneously declaring that it is not negotiating with the United States.

This is not merely a matter of linguistic precision. Iran also needs to protect the regime’s image before its domestic audience and avoid appearing to have entered negotiations under the pressure of the largest U.S. military threat since World War II.

Iran therefore resorts to defiant and exaggerated rhetoric to project negotiating strength beyond its actual capabilities and conceal the extent to which war and economic and military pressure have created a need for an exit.

Trump Moves Ahead of Events

Trump, by contrast, uses language in the opposite way.

He announces that an agreement is close before arrangements are complete, describes contacts as negotiations, and speaks of anticipated outcomes as though they have already been achieved. In doing so, he seeks to generate political momentum and push the other side to treat his announcement as a new reality.

His statements have succeeded in calming markets and lowering oil prices. However, they have also raised expectations before the emergence of a written agreement or official Iranian confirmation.

The conflict between Washington and Tehran therefore concerns more than the terms of an agreement. It is also about who has the right to announce its beginning, who appears to be seeking negotiations, and who can present a retreat as a victory.

The Mediators in the Middle

The gap between the U.S. announcement and the Iranian denial highlights the importance of the roles played by Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Qatar.

If no direct negotiations are taking place, the mediators’ channels may constitute the actual negotiations, even if both sides refuse to describe them as such.

The mediating countries are attempting to turn exchanged messages into clear commitments and prevent confrontational rhetoric from bringing military force back to the forefront.

The Evening Test

The real test will not be what Trump announced or what Iran denied before the scheduled time. It will be what happens Monday evening:

Will direct or indirect negotiations begin?

Will a mediating country announce the start of talks?

Or will the scheduled time pass without a meeting, leaving the negotiations that postponed the largest planned U.S. attack as nothing more than an announcement that never found a table?

Until then, Washington and Tehran appear to be negotiating first over what to call the process taking place between them.

While Washington moves ahead of events through its announcements, Iran attempts to delay them through words. Both sides want an agreement, but neither wants to appear to be the one that needed it.