U.S. President Donald Trump recently stated that dialogue with Iran is "possible," a remark cited by several media outlets. However, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi quickly responded, clearly denying any intention from Tehran to seek negotiations. He emphasized that the long-standing trust deficit between the U.S. and Iran, along with regional tensions, constitutes a fundamental barrier to direct dialogue.
The apparent divergence in positions marks the initial tone of this issue: the U.S. is sending signals of openness, while Iran remains steadfast in its stance of not proactively seeking talks. In the absence of verifiable de-escalation measures, the room for concessions from either side is quite limited, and verbal confrontations may escalate rather than lead to a thaw.
While the White House has not denied Trump's statement, it has not provided a specific timeline or negotiation pathway, maintaining strategic ambiguity. Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress is still engaged in heated debates over the president's authority for military action against Iran. Recently, the House of Representatives rejected a proposal aimed at limiting the president's power to use military force against Iran, highlighting deep divisions between the executive and legislative branches regarding war powers.
According to the War Powers Act of 1973, the president is obligated to inform Congress and seek authorization when deploying U.S. troops into hostile actions. If military operations continue for more than 60 days, it triggers statutory procedures that affect the legitimacy of strategic decisions and political stability.
Strategic analysts also caution that relying solely on military pressure is unlikely to yield political breakthroughs. The French newspaper Le Monde cited scholar Robert Pep's view that airstrikes often provoke unpredictable retaliation and may not force adversaries to concede. The U.S. National Intelligence Council also assesses that even precision strikes against leadership are unlikely to lead to regime change in Iran. In the absence of mutual trust and substantive concessions, the diplomatic stalemate is unlikely to be broken in the short term.