On the evening of April 30, Pete Hegseth, the US Secretary of Defense, posted a message on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) that seemed more like a military threat than a gesture of respect for negotiation rules. He addressed Iran, stating, "We see your deadly support for the Houthis... You will pay the price for this support at a time and place of our choosing."
At first glance, these words may appear to be merely a hardline stance; however, what the US Secretary of Defense articulated before sensitive discussions with Iran was a blatant humiliation of the principle of diplomacy. These statements not only contaminate the atmosphere of dialogue but also indicate that the US government is still under the delusion of a stick approach, seeking to coerce independent countries through threats.
Hegseth also shared an old message from Donald Trump on the Truth Social platform, which held Iran responsible for any actions taken by the Houthis. This reposting is not a trivial act but rather an organized effort to legitimize a one-sided and distorted narrative of regional dynamics; a narrative that portrays the legitimate resistance of the Yemeni people as a proxy for Tehran to evade accountability for years of warmongering.
Experience has shown that whenever Washington faces weakness or inability to gain concessions in negotiations, it resorts back to the language of threats and pressure; as if, in the US political lexicon, diplomacy only holds meaning when the opposing party is passive and submissive. This logic is not only strategically ineffective but is also morally and legally condemned.
It is noteworthy that Iran has repeatedly stated that its support for the Ansarallah movement in Yemen is not a matter of direct command but rather stems from shared ideological principles, anti-imperialist resistance, and objection to the continuation of aggression and blockade against Yemen. In contrast, it is the United States that has kept the flames of war alive through the export of billions of dollars in weapons to the region and direct attacks on Yemen.
Nonetheless, some analysts believe that these threats and actions, such as the sanctions that are systematically imposed by the US on Iran before each round of negotiations, are less a precursor to actual military action and more an effort to exert psychological influence over the negotiation process. In recent months, the US has been unable to derive benefits from its maximum pressure policy and is now resorting to threats from a position of weakness.
However, the essential question remains: Do such actions and statements align with the fundamental principles of negotiation and mutual respect, and can they lead to a balanced agreement with a party that is merely seeking to increase pressure for concessions?
The continuation of such aggressive approaches by US officials not only fails to resolve regional crises but also drives negotiations toward a deadlock. If the United States seeks a sustainable agreement based on regional realities, it must distance itself from the language of threats and prioritize respect for the sovereignty of nations as a prerequisite for its diplomacy.
NOURNEWS