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 is a policy that risks sending mixed signals to allies, adversaries and the wider international community. Regional states that would bear the consequences of any wider conflict are left wondering where this strategy is ultimately leading. The uncertainty itself is becoming a source of regional instability.

States have a right to defend themselves. But if diplomacy remains the preferred path, military actions should support that objective rather than cast doubt on it. At present, the US appears to be pursuing two tracks simultaneously: one is aimed at negotiation and the other at escalation. The latest strikes leave observers questioning which of the two is Washington’s real priority. Until that question is answered, claims that a deal is within reach are likely to be met with growing scepticism.

Published in Dawn, June 2nd, 2026