current situation between the US and Iran presents a complex game of “talking while fighting,” with diplomatic negotiations and military actions advancing in parallel, serving as mutual support.

“One hand negotiating, one hand increasing troops” — this is not a contradiction, but an extension of Trump’s maximum pressure logic in a wartime context: using military presence to increase bargaining chips, and using negotiation progress to cover military deployments. Recently, the US has dispatched thousands of troops to the Middle East, including about 6,000 aboard the “Bush” aircraft carrier and 4,200 from the “Prowler” amphibious task force; at the same time, over 10,000 US personnel and more than a dozen warships are carrying out blockades of Iranian ports. This synchronized approach essentially relies on military strength as a backing to secure more favorable conditions at the negotiation table.

Domestic politics is the core driving force behind this strategy. Trump’s approval rating has fallen to 36%, with economic support dropping below 30%, and midterm election pressures looming. He cannot stop without achieving substantive results, nor can he afford an indefinite Middle East attrition war — the so-called “historic victory” packaging demand is the political core of the “talking while fighting” mode.

However, the negotiation stances of both sides remain far apart. In mid-April, negotiations in Islamabad lasted nearly 21 hours without reaching an agreement. The US demanded Iran suspend uranium enrichment for 20 years, Iran only agreed to 5 years; the US requested that highly enriched uranium be exported abroad, Iran insisted on remaining within the country. Russia also disclosed that Israel and the US might be using negotiations to prepare for ground military operations. The current ceasefire agreement, which lasts about two weeks, will expire on April 22, with both sides denying any consensus on extending it.

The essence of this game is: the negotiation table is an extension of the battlefield, not a substitute. As long as the deadlock on the battlefield remains unbroken, substantive breakthroughs in talks will be difficult. In the short term, the pattern of “limited escalation + intermittent negotiations” will continue.