Why does Iran always speak harshly on one hand and give way on the other?

Yesterday, they said the U.S. military attacked six civilian ships, and today they deny anyone is missing.
Many say this is chaos within the Iranian official message, a battle between two brains, severe internal division.
Alright, let me change the question: if Iran is truly embroiled in internal power struggles to the point of government paralysis, how can they still firmly hold onto their nuclear leverage under decades of maximum pressure from the U.S. and Israel?
Because they never intended to unify their stance.
But who规定s that a country can only have one voice externally?
Since no one规定s that, with two voices coexisting, what exactly do they follow?
Is it strategy, or an unspoken division of labor?
Many only see the Revolutionary Guard shouting to block the Strait of Hormuz, and then the government saying they’re willing to negotiate, thinking they’re undermining each other, never considering that this might be a pre-designed script from the start.
It’s like you go to a company to discuss resignation, and the boss slams the table saying, “If you want to leave, just leave. We don’t lack you,” while HR turns around and says, “Think it over, we’ll give you a 500 yuan raise.”
It’s like bargaining at the market—you pretend to leave, the boss pretends to keep you, but both are actually testing each other’s bottom line.
Iran is the same.
The “red face” is always the Revolutionary Guard, holding the guns and nuclear plans, shouting the bottom lines they cannot retreat from;
The “white face” is always the elected government, responsible for international communication, leaving all negotiation space to them.
This time, the fishing boat incident is textbook operation: first, use “U.S. military attacking civilian ships” to dominate public opinion and show strength domestically; then, use “no one is missing” to give the U.S. an exit, avoiding escalation.
What you see as chaos is all carefully calculated timing; what you see as internal fighting is all tacit cooperation.
What you see is always what others want you to see.
Diplomacy has never been a black-and-white question of right and wrong, but a game of advancing and retreating.
The most terrifying thing is not that opponents play tricks, but that you mistake their tricks for flaws and smugly think you’ve seen through everything.