Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf recently declared that the era of one-sided deals is over while highlighting a memorandum provision offering safe passage for commercial vessels for only 60 days. His message was unmistakable: Tehran views negotiations not as a path to reconciliation but as another instrument of leverage.
Washington should believe him.
Recommended Stories
For more than four decades, the Islamic Republic has pursued a consistent strategy. It negotiates when doing so eases pressure, buys time, weakens international unity, or improves its strategic position. At the same time, it continues advancing the policies that have defined the regime since 1979: expanding its missile capabilities, supporting proxy groups across the Middle East, and challenging U.S. interests and allies.
This is not speculation. It is the historical record.
Successive American administrations, Republican and Democratic alike, have attempted engagement with Tehran under different circumstances. Yet Iran has continued supporting armed groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas, Iraqi militias, and the Houthis, while expanding its regional influence. Negotiations have come and gone, but the regime’s strategic objectives have remained remarkably consistent.
That is why recent rhetoric from Tehran matters. Iranian leaders are not signaling a fundamental change in policy. They are signaling confidence that they can once again shape the terms of engagement while preserving the core interests of the Islamic Republic.
The United States should not mistake tactical flexibility for strategic moderation.
Diplomacy is an important tool of statecraft, but diplomacy alone cannot alter the behavior of a regime that has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to absorb economic pressure in pursuit of long-term ideological and geopolitical goals. Agreements that lack effective enforcement, rigorous verification, and meaningful consequences for violations risk becoming temporary pauses rather than durable solutions.
America’s allies understand this reality all too well. Israel continues to face missile and drone threats from Iranian-backed groups. Gulf partners remain concerned about attacks on shipping, energy infrastructure, and regional stability. These security concerns cannot be separated from negotiations over Iran’s broader conduct.
A successful U.S. strategy should therefore rest on realism rather than optimism. It should combine sustained economic pressure, strict enforcement of sanctions, credible military deterrence, close coordination with regional allies, and unwavering protection of international maritime commerce. Diplomatic engagement should support these objectives — not replace them.
None of this means diplomacy should be abandoned. It means diplomacy must be grounded in a clear-eyed understanding of whom America is negotiating with. Hope is not a strategy, and history is a poor teacher only for those unwilling to learn from it.
The central question is no longer whether Iran is willing to negotiate. It is whether the United States has learned from decades of negotiating with a regime whose strategic goals have remained fundamentally unchanged.
IRAN RETURNS TO NO-LIMITS GULF STATE TARGET LIST AFTER DECLARING STRAIT OF HORMUZ CLOSED
Tehran has not changed.
American strategy should.
Heyrsh Abdulrahman is a Washington-based senior intelligence analyst and former Kurdistan Regional Government official. He writes on U.S. foreign policy, Middle East security, Iraqi politics, and regional affairs. His analysis and commentary have appeared in major U.S., Middle Eastern, and international news outlets.
