Trump Moves Toward Iran Talks as January Bloodshed Overshadows Diplomacy

As the United States and Iran prepare to meet on February 6, 2026, observers question the purpose and value of the talks, given the gap between the two sides’ positions. Washington has indicated that any agreement would require three major concessions, while Tehran appears willing to discuss only the nuclear file, refusing to address its ballistic missile program or its support for militant proxies across the region.

The sequence of events since mid-January 2026 has jarred many Iranians. The regime met a nationwide revolt with mass killings, and only afterward did talk of new negotiations with Tehran emerge. To many Iranians, this ordering felt like a reversal. Whether Washington intends to confront Tehran over the bloodshed or demand guarantees against its repetition remains unclear. President Donald Trump began deploying naval and air forces to the region and told protesters that help was coming, but as violence escalated, he did not meet those promises with action.

At the same time, the U.S. administration has assembled a formidable military presence in the region and has warned Tehran that failure to negotiate seriously could lead to a military strike. This has left analysts asking what Trump seeks. Is he aiming for a comprehensive agreement with Iran’s leadership, or a narrower deal focused on a single issue? If the latter, it is difficult to see how such an outcome would differ meaningfully from the 2015 accord reached under President Barack Obama, or why it would meet the standards Trump outlined during his first and second terms. A deal limited to the nuclear program would fall far short of those objectives.

Many Iranian opposition activists and some analysts argue that Trump is deliberately keeping Tehran off balance, while preparing for a confrontation that could even end with the collapse of the ruling system. Bloomberg columnist Marc Champion suggested that confusion may be a sign of success only if it reflects a calculated strategy rather than indecision. “That confusion is a mark of U.S. success only if Trump is conducting a crazy-like-a-fox strategy,” Champion wrote, “designed to wrong-foot his opponent while a well-considered plan to reach a desired endgame—such as changing the system in Tehran—is underway.”

Others believe Trump understands that negotiations with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei are futile and that conflict is unavoidable. An Iranian journalist in London, pointing to the imbalance of power, wrote that Khamenei “suffers from a pathological delusion,” believing missile strikes and proxy forces can force Trump to back down. “Under such conditions,” the journalist argued, “the likelihood of war is 100 percent.”

Former senior U.S. diplomat Dennis Ross has also dismissed the prospects for meaningful talks. Writing on X, he argued that Iran “wants to negotiate but not make any real concessions,” adding that the government “speaks the language of war but fears it, brutalizes its public, and fails in basic governance.” Ross concluded that the system would collapse and questioned whether outside pressure could meaningfully change its behavior.

Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia, expressed skepticism about the wisdom of a military strike but urged Trump not to abandon Iranian protesters. Writing on X, he argued that those fighting for freedom in Iran “don’t need a nuclear deal,” but instead need tangible support, including expanded access to communications, financial assistance for opposition forces, tougher sanctions, and an oil blockade.

Inside Iran, government-aligned commentators have openly defended the January massacre, portraying protesters as American- and Israeli-backed saboteurs. Reports of continued killings of detainees persist. One activist reported that salaries for security forces rose by 60 to 120 percent in January, while ordinary Iranians are struggling with triple-digit food inflation. Some armed enforcers now earn as much as $700 a month, while the average worker makes less than $100, as the national currency continues to slide.

The rationale for renewed nuclear talks has also come under scrutiny. The Trump administration has asserted that Iran’s uranium enrichment capability was destroyed in U.S. air strikes in June 2025. If Tehran is now offering to halt enrichment, critics argue, it would amount to conceding a capability it no longer possesses.

On February 1, Khamenei warned that any attack on Iran would trigger a regional war, a threat largely grounded in Tehran’s ballistic missile arsenal, which can reach U.S. bases and allies across the Middle East. Yet even as he issues such warnings, the Iranian leadership insists that negotiations be limited strictly to the nuclear issue. Whether Washington’s willingness to engage will yield clarity, or deepen the contradictions, may become clearer after the February 6 talks.