Mixed messaging

THE latest US strikes on Iranian targets have added another layer of uncertainty to an already tense situation in the Middle East. Washington says the attacks were in response to Iranian actions and were meant to protect US personnel and interests. Iran has condemned the strikes and responded with military action of its own. Every new exchange increases the risk of a wider conflict in a region that has seen more than its share of instability. Yet beyond the latest military developments lies a crucial question: what exactly is the US trying to achieve? If it believes a diplomatic deal with Iran is close, why does it continue to take steps that could push such a deal further away? For months, American officials have spoken optimistically about negotiations with Tehran, suggesting that talks are ongoing and that a deal remains possible. That message is difficult to reconcile with the latest military action. Striking Iranian targets may send a message of strength, but it also risks provoking retaliation and deepening mistrust. It is fair to ask how these actions fit into a strategy that is supposedly aimed at reaching a negotiated settlement. Supporters of the American approach would argue that diplomacy and pressure often go hand in hand. Governments frequently try to strengthen their position at the negotiating table by applying military, economic or political pressure. Yet, in reality, there are limits to how effective this can be. There comes a point when pressure meant to bring an adversary to the negotiating table instead makes meaningful discussions difficult to pursue. Every strike gives hardliners in Iran another reason to oppose compromise. Every retaliation increases the chances that events will spiral beyond anyone’s control. This is why Washington’s message appears increasingly confused. On the one hand, it speaks of dialogue and the possibility of a breakthrough. On the other, it continues to engage in actions that make dialogue more difficult. The result