Beyond Diplomacy: Why Iran And The U.S. Will Not Reach A Lasting Agreement — Even With Russia’s Mediation

At first glance, Russia’s proposal to mediate between Iran and the United States may seem like a pragmatic step toward easing regional tensions and stabilizing a new Eurasian order. As a key player in the Tehran-Moscow-Beijing axis, Moscow appears eager to use diplomacy to bridge the longstanding rift between Tehran and Washington. However, a deeper look into the philosophical, ideological, and geopolitical foundations of Iran-U.S. relations reveals that a durable and comprehensive agreement is highly unlikely — even with Russia’s involvement.

The conflict is not merely tactical or diplomatic; it is civilizational. After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran emerged not as just another state within the global order, but as a counter-hegemonic paradigm. Iran’s post-revolutionary identity was neither rooted in Soviet-style socialism nor liberal Western democracy. Instead, it offered a third path — political Islam — a comprehensive worldview with answers for governance, resistance, and societal development. This foundational divergence is why Iran and the U.S. remain ideologically opposed: one espousing secular liberalism, the other a revolutionary Islamic order. As Imam Khomeini famously declared: “We are not against the American people. We are against the American government because it wants to enslave our nation.”

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many believed liberalism had no ideological competitor. Francis Fukuyama boldly proclaimed the “end of history,” hailing liberal democracy as the ultimate form of governance. But Iran — through the doctrine of resistance — rejected that narrative and spread its influence throughout the region, from Lebanon to Yemen. This resistance axis, once regional, has now taken on global dimensions with deepening ties to Russia and China. As I explored in my recent article in Oriental Review, “The Return of Politics: How the Tehran-Moscow-Beijing Axis Signals a New World Order,” Iran has helped forge an alternative geopolitical paradigm against Western hegemony.

Alexander Dugin, the Russian political theorist, echoes this sentiment in his Fourth Political Theory, writing: “The liberal global order is collapsing, and civilizational powers like Iran, China, and Russia are shaping a multipolar world.” Russia’s desire to mediate between Tehran and Washington stems from its strategic calculus: to enhance its Eurasian role, capitalize on détente in the Gulf, and exert diplomatic leverage in Europe — particularly amid the Ukraine conflict. However, even with Moscow’s balanced diplomacy, it cannot erase the ideological chasm between Tehran and Washington.

The United States does not merely oppose Iran’s policies — it challenges the Islamic Republic’s very identity. Washington’s aim, evident in its “maximum pressure” campaign and calls for “behavioral change,” is to secularize Iran and erode its revolutionary ethos. As American economist Jeffrey Sachs notes, “The U.S. doesn’t seek compromise with Iran; it seeks internal transformation.” Negotiation, in this view, is not dialogue but pressure.

Noam Chomsky similarly argues in Who Rules the World? that “the U.S. uses diplomacy not to resolve conflict but to impose its will.” For Washington, negotiation is often a tool of dominance, not equality. The 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) showed that even when a formal agreement is reached, it can be unilaterally discarded. Trump’s withdrawal from the deal, despite Iran’s compliance, revealed the fragile nature of diplomacy when trust is absent.

As realist theorist John Mearsheimer writes: “Iran, due to its ideology and regional power, cannot be subordinated to the U.S.-led order. Any agreement aiming to neutralize these factors is bound to fail.”

Thus, any future “deal” would likely be temporary, transactional, and susceptible to political shifts in Washington. The structural hostility — rooted in competing worldviews — renders reconciliation unstable. Henry Kissinger once observed that “Iran is not merely a nation-state but a civilization that disputes our very conception of world order.” This civilizational clash cannot be arbitrated away.

Russia’s role, while strategic and potentially constructive, is ultimately limited. It cannot reconcile two fundamentally divergent paradigms. The Islamic Republic is unlikely to surrender its revolutionary identity, and the U.S. remains wedded to global liberal dominance. The best that can be hoped for is a tactical ceasefire, not a philosophical concord.

The core issue is not diplomacy, but destiny.