For more than two decades, nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States have stood as one of the most complex and costly disputes in international politics. Far from being limited to Iran’s nuclear program, the talks reflect a deeper confrontation over Washington’s perception of Iran’s role in regional and global power structures. Past experience suggests that the United States has repeatedly favored pressure, threats, and coercion over accepting geopolitical realities—an approach that has yielded little beyond heightened mistrust and instability.
From the earliest stages of the nuclear dispute, Washington sought to transform the issue into a broader containment tool against Iran. Comprehensive sanctions, diplomatic pressure, military threats, and sustained media campaigns were all deployed within a strategy designed to force Iran into relinquishing its legitimate rights. Over time, however, this strategy has failed to deliver its intended outcome, instead reinforcing Iran’s resistance-oriented posture.
Tested Policies, Repeated Failures
Over the years, the United States has employed nearly every available instrument to compel Iranian compliance. These efforts have ranged from consensus-building at the UN Security Council to unilateral sanctions and attempts to politically isolate Iran at the regional and international levels. The military option, meanwhile, has consistently remained on the table as an implicit threat. Yet none of these measures has succeeded in diverting Iran from its independent course.
The 2015 nuclear agreement serves as a defining case. Iran entered the negotiations in good faith and accepted far-reaching commitments. The United States’ unilateral withdrawal from the deal later exposed a core issue: the problem was not the agreement’s text, but Washington’s approach. The episode demonstrated that even formal US signatures offer no lasting guarantee, severely undermining confidence in any future arrangement.
Iran as an Unavoidable Regional Reality
One of Washington’s central strategic miscalculations has been its failure to recognize Iran’s actual position in regional dynamics. Iran is no longer a peripheral actor; it is a key power in West Asia with tangible influence across security, political, and economic domains. This influence stems from indigenous capabilities and independent policies, not from external sponsorship—and it cannot be erased through pressure.
If the United States seeks genuine regional stability, it must come to terms with this reality. Regional crises over the years have shown that excluding Iran from major equations is neither feasible nor conducive to security. Negotiations can only become meaningful if Iran is addressed not from a position of dominance, but as a comparable regional power.
Negotiation or Imposition: Two Divergent Paths
Nuclear diplomacy can succeed only if it aims to resolve a defined dispute, not serve as a vehicle for extracting additional concessions. At various points, Washington has attempted to expand the scope of talks beyond the nuclear file, introducing Iran’s defense capabilities and regional policies into the negotiations. From Tehran’s perspective, this represents political imposition disguised as diplomacy.
Iran has repeatedly stated that its nuclear program is peaceful in nature and that it is prepared to provide transparency within the framework of international law. Such transparency, however, cannot be one-sided. Genuine sanctions relief, credible guarantees, and recognition of Iran’s nuclear rights are essential prerequisites for any sustainable agreement. Absent these elements, negotiations risk devolving into a prolonged and unproductive process.
Domestic Pressures and External Sabotage
Another major obstacle to a potential agreement lies in the influence of powerful lobbying networks within the US decision-making system—groups whose interests are often tied to perpetual tension. Their efforts to derail diplomacy have contributed to regional insecurity while imposing substantial costs on Washington and its allies.
At the same time, deep political divisions within the United States have produced erratic foreign policy shifts. Each new administration attempts to reverse its predecessor’s course, eroding credibility and trust. Iran, fully aware of this pattern, has emphasized the need for tangible and enforceable guarantees.
Regional Security and a Shift in US way of Thinking
Sustainable stability in West Asia is unattainable without Iran’s participation. Recent history indicates that efforts to marginalize Iran have intensified crises, while dialogue and engagement have offered avenues for crisis management. Recognizing Iran’s rights under international treaties is not a concession—it is a practical necessity for de-escalation.
Such an approach could open the door to broader regional cooperation and help address other persistent conflicts. If Washington seeks to reduce its strategic and financial burdens in the region, it must give up maximum pressure and return to genuine diplomacy.
Conclusion
Iran-US nuclear negotiations now stand at a critical juncture. Past experience makes clear that attempts to force Iran’s submission have failed, and their continuation will only deepen tensions and insecurity. The United States faces a strategic choice: persist with a costly path of confrontation or accept new realities and engage through rational, respect-based diplomacy.
A negotiation grounded in mutual respect, recognition of Iran’s rights, and real sanctions relief could not only resolve the nuclear issue but also serve as a starting point for easing wider regional tensions. The decision ultimately rests with Washington.
