Two statements emerged almost simultaneously.
Donald Trump claimed that negotiations with Iran were underway and progressing, prompting him to postpone a threatened strike on Iranian power infrastructure.
Iran, for its part, denied that any negotiations were taking place at all.
At first glance, one of these statements must have been false.
In reality, both may be true.
This paradox exposes a deeper and far more dangerous reality. There may no longer be a single, coherent entity that can be called “Iran" in the context of negotiations.
Diplomacy assumes something fundamental. A country has a recognizable chain of command, a leadership structure, and someone who speaks in a way that binds the state.
That assumption may no longer hold.
For decades, Iran’s system was described as a hierarchy, a pyramid with a clear apex and defined layers of authority beneath it.
But when the top of that structure is weakened, fragmented, or no longer functions as a coordinating force, the system does not collapse. It fractures.
What remains is not a pyramid, but a field of competing power centers. Military factions, clerical authorities, political actors, and regional commanders operate with partial authority, limited visibility, and their own agendas.
In such a system, diplomacy runs into a fundamental problem.
Who exactly are you negotiating with?
One faction may engage in talks. Another may deny they exist. A third may be unaware they are happening.
An agreement reached with one node may not be recognized by others, may not be enforced, and may not even be known beyond a narrow circle.
This is not negotiation with a state. It is negotiation with fragments.
Donald Trump may indeed be speaking with someone inside Iran, someone with influence, access, and perceived authority.
At the same time, Iran’s denial may also be accurate because other centers of power are not part of those discussions.
In a fragmented system, truth itself becomes localized. Each faction speaks for its own reality, not for the state.
Diplomacy depends on continuity. An agreement must survive internal politics, be enforced across institutions, and carry legitimacy beyond the individuals who sign it.
Without that, agreements are not agreements. They are temporary understandings with isolated actors. They do not bind the state, they do not guarantee compliance, and they do not endure.
There is no single address for Iran. No one office to call, no one leader to meet, no one signature that guarantees anything.
What appears to be negotiation may, in reality, be engagement with only one fragment of a fractured system.
It would be a mistake to assume that Donald Trump does not understand this reality. He likely does and may be acting precisely because of it.
What if the objective is not to negotiate with Iran, but to exploit the fact that there is no longer a single Iran to negotiate with?
Engaging selectively with fragments while maintaining pressure can deepen internal fractures. One faction is drawn into talks, another is sidelined, and a third reacts.
The result is not unity but tension, not coherence but competition, not control but erosion.
In this light, negotiations are not a path to agreement. They are an instrument of pressure.
The goal may be to accelerate a process already underway. The weakening of central authority, the widening of internal divisions, and ultimately, the collapse of a regime that can no longer function as a state.
The hope is that out of this fragmentation, a new leadership will emerge, one capable of restoring order, speaking with a single voice, and entering into agreements that actually bind.
But this strategy carries a profound risk.
Fragmentation does not guarantee collapse.
It can produce prolonged instability, competing centers of power, and a vacuum that no coherent force is able to fill.
Instead of transition, chaos. Instead of a new leadership, rival authorities, each strong enough to resist, but none strong enough to govern.
In that scenario, the problem is not solved. It is amplified.
The question is no longer whether the United States can reach an agreement with Iran.
The question is far more fundamental.
Is there still an Iran capable of agreeing to anything at all?
Dr. Avi Perry is a former professor at Northwestern University and a former researcher and executive at Bell Labs. He served as Vice President at NMS Communications and represented the United States on the UN International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Standards Committee. He is the author of the thriller novel “72 VIRGINS", and of “Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks." Recently, he published “Unlocked: A Practical Guide to Learning and Applying Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Solve Real-World Problems" as well as “A Winner’s Playbook: How to Win by Spotting and Using the Rules Governing Human Behavior," practical rules that guide the path to success. He is a regular op-ed contributor to The Jerusalem Post and Israel National News