‘Played twice already’: Why Iran fears Trump could be setting it up for a third time

A map showing the Strait of Hormuz and a 3D-printed miniature model depicting U.S. President Donald Trump are seen in this illustration taken March 23, 2026. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration

Iran remains deeply distrustful of US peace overtures, citing past military actions during talks, sweeping demands in the US proposal, ongoing troop buildup, and indirect negotiations. Tehran insists on a ceasefire before talks, highlighting a persistent trust deficit.

Did our AI summary help?

Even as US President Donald Trump signals a willingness to negotiate, Iran remains deeply sceptical of the latest peace overtures. The distrust is not new. It is rooted in recent history, conflicting signals, and ongoing military escalation, all of which have made Tehran wary of what it sees as a possible diplomatic trap.

1. The core issue: Talks amid bombings

At the heart of Iran’s hesitation lies a fundamental contradiction. Iranian officials believe that Washington is attempting diplomacy while simultaneously escalating military pressure.

A key concern stems from past experience. Iranian officials recall that previous rounds of talks were overtaken by military action, particularly US-Israeli strikes that came just as negotiations were expected to progress.

One report notes that Tehran fears being “played a third time” after earlier instances where diplomatic engagement coincided with attacks.

This dual-track approach has reinforced a perception in Iran that negotiations may not be genuine, but rather a strategic cover for military objectives.

2. “Negotiating with itself”: Iran questions US intent

Iranian scepticism goes beyond timing. It also extends to how the negotiations are being framed.

A senior Iranian military spokesperson dismissed Washington’s outreach, saying the US was effectively “negotiating with itself”, signalling Tehran’s refusal to engage under current conditions.

This reflects a broader belief within Iran’s leadership that:

• The US is setting unilateral terms
• Iran is being pressured into compliance rather than dialogue
• The process lacks mutual trust or credible guarantees

Tehran has therefore avoided confirming any direct talks, even as backchannel diplomacy continues through mediators.

The 15-point plan: Peace proposal or pressure document?

The US proposal, reportedly a 15-point framework, is central to the current diplomatic push.

As outlined in the reports:

• Iran would need to halt uranium enrichment
• Dismantle parts of its nuclear programme
• Limit its missile capabilities
• End support for regional proxy groups

In return, the US has indicated sanctions relief and economic incentives.

However, from Iran’s perspective, these demands are too sweeping and resemble capitulation rather than compromise.

Tehran’s counter-expectations reportedly include:

• Removal of US military presence in the region
• Full sanctions rollback
• Control over strategic waterways like the Strait of Hormuz

The wide gap between the two sides has further fuelled distrust.

4. The shadow of military buildup

Even as diplomatic signals emerge, military preparations have not slowed.

Reports highlight that the US continues to:

• Reinforce troop deployments
• Maintain operational readiness
• Coordinate closely with Israel on strikes

This contradiction is captured starkly in a statement by a senior US official: “We negotiate with bombs.”

For Iran, such messaging reinforces the belief that talks are being conducted under coercion, not goodwill.

5. Mediation without direct talks

Another unusual feature of the current situation is the absence of direct US-Iran engagement. Instead, countries like Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt have been acting as intermediaries.

While this keeps communication channels open, it also adds layers of ambiguity. Iran has maintained publicly that no direct negotiations are underway, even as messages are exchanged indirectly.

This indirect format contributes to mistrust, as messages can be interpreted differently, commitments lack immediacy, and accountability becomes diffuse.

6. Iran’s bottom line: Ceasefire first, then talks

A critical divergence lies in sequencing.

• The US appears to want negotiations alongside pressure
• Iran insists on halting hostilities before meaningful talks

Tehran’s priority, according to the reports, is a ceasefire, after which broader discussions can take place.

Without this, Iranian officials fear that entering negotiations would only weaken their position while military pressure continues.

7. A trust deficit years in the making

Ultimately, the current deadlock is not just about one proposal. It reflects a deep and accumulated trust deficit.

Key reasons include:

• Past negotiations collapsing amid military strikes
• Conflicting US signals on diplomacy and war
• Perception of regime-change ambitions
• Lack of enforceable guarantees

This has led Iran to approach the latest peace push with extreme caution, viewing it less as an opportunity and more as a potential strategic manoeuvre.

Conclusion: Diplomacy on fragile ground

The US push for talks and Iran’s resistance highlight a paradox.

There is clear interest in avoiding prolonged conflict, but no shared trust to enable genuine negotiations.

As things stand:

• The US is pursuing pressure-backed diplomacy
• Iran is demanding credibility before engagement

Until that gap is bridged, the prospect of a breakthrough remains uncertain. The risk is that diplomacy continues to exist alongside escalation, rather than replacing it.