Despite repeated rounds of negotiations, hopes for a successful agreement between Iran and the United States remain dim. From Tehran’s perspective, the core obstacle is not technical—it is epistemological.
The enduring standoff reflects a civilizational dissonance: a secular liberal internationalism on one side, and a theologically-rooted sovereignty on the other—each with incompatible views on law, legitimacy, and the role of religion in statehood.
For the Islamic Republic, the United States is not a trustworthy actor. This is not merely a product of past grievances but a conclusion drawn from ongoing contradictions in Washington’s behavior. Just three days ago, the U.S. Treasury imposed yet another round of sanctions on Iran, this time citing the country’s sale of liquefied petroleum gas. These actions signal to Iranian policymakers that America’s strategy is not sincere diplomacy, but calibrated containment—
part of a broader civilizational strategy aimed at dismantling ideological alternatives to Western liberal hegemony.
Tehran is especially wary of what it perceives as the shifting goalposts of U.S. negotiation tactics. The initial justification for sanctions and talks was Iran’s nuclear program. However, there is a strong belief within Iranian leadership that once progress is made on the nuclear front, Washington will escalate demands—raising issues such as Iran’s regional alliances and its missile capabilities. These matters are regarded as sovereign imperatives and strategic red lines.
Iranian officials have consistently emphasized that its support for regional resistance groups is a matter of principle and deterrence, not aggression.
Negotiations are often shaped by narrative frameworks—where one side seeks legitimacy and the other projects deviance.
Washington’s framing of Iran as a perpetual threat feeds a broader containment doctrine. While the U.S. and its allies accuse Iran of financing groups such as Hezbollah or Hamas, Iranian authorities deny such characterizations, describing their position as moral solidarity with movements resisting occupation and foreign intervention. In this view, the U.S. narrative deliberately misconstrues regional politics to justify broader efforts at isolating Iran.
Moreover, from Tehran’s vantage point, the American fear is not limited to Iran’s nuclear potential but extends to its ideological influence. Policymakers in Washington worry that lifting sanctions and allowing economic normalization could inadvertently empower Iran’s model of governance—an independent state rooted in Islamic values, civilizational confidence, and regional connectivity.
Such a model stands in stark contrast to the U.S.-backed order in West Asia.
In a world slowly gravitating toward multipolarity, Iran positions itself as a node of resistance. This defiance unsettles Washington—not because of Iran’s capacity, but because it challenges the liberal order’s claim to universality.
Thus, the question arises: if the U.S. deems Iran’s ideology incompatible with its own vision of order, why return to the negotiation table? For many in Tehran, the answer is clear—Washington seeks neither reconciliation nor resolution. The nuclear file is simply a pretext. The real goal is to control Iran’s rise, delay its strategic projects, and force a recalibration of its behavior through prolonged dialogue and limited economic relief.
This is why some Iranian analysts argue that negotiations are not designed to succeed. Rather, they serve to manage crises, shape public perception, and extend the status quo—one in which Iran remains sanctioned but engaged, pressured yet contained.
From this vantage point, the negotiations are a game of strategic optics. The U.S. wants to appear open to diplomacy while preserving leverage. Iran, on the other hand, views dignity and sovereignty as non-negotiable.
Without mutual trust and a genuine acknowledgment of Iran’s regional and ideological identity, the prospects for a lasting agreement remain slim.
If diplomacy continues to be framed within Western expectations of compliance and ideological surrender, Iran may look Eastward and Southward—not just for trade, but for a reimagined global engagement.
As long as Washington insists on engaging Iran solely through the lens of coercion, not respect, diplomacy will remain under siege.
Comments