Iran’s Strategic Options: Rethinking Negotiation with America

Introduction

In analysing the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, reliance upon the classical frameworks of liberal diplomacy—predicated as they are on mutual trust, international institutions, and legal obligations—appears distinctly inadequate for elucidating the conduct of major powers, most notably the United States. The foreign policy system of the Islamic Republic defines ‘Iranian realism’ as a pragmatic theoretical framework which, in stark contrast to Western schools of thought, is founded not upon the maintenance of a crude balance of power, but rather upon ‘active deterrence’ and a steadfast reliance on practical, on-the-ground measures. In this view, written commitments and diplomatic assurances are devoid of intrinsic value; rather, it is exclusively tangible, operational capabilities in the field that are deemed the true guarantors of survival and national security.

The historical experience of engaging with major powers, specifically the United States, has demonstrated that diplomacy in its conventional sense—rooted in goodwill and adherence to obligations—proves wholly ineffectual against America’s structural interests and habitual pattern of abrogating agreements. Furthermore, international commitments, when bereft of a robust deterrent backing, ultimately amount to ceding the initiative to an actor that simultaneously dictates and flouts the rules of the game.

Consequently, Iranian realism must be understood as an indigenous theory of decision-making. By synthesising ‘historical memory’, the ‘calculus of power’ and ‘pre-emptive action’, it offers a paradigm for comprehending and directing foreign policy that is profoundly divergent from Western models. Contrary to the classical interpretations of realism within international relations, Iranian realism is not merely an analytical construct; it is a logic of survival, born of Iran's historical encounters with the volatility of the international system and the capricious behaviour of its adversaries. Transcending the simplistic binary of ‘negotiation versus confrontation’, this approach is anchored in a fundamental axiom: only that which has been unequivocally established in the theatre of power shall be accorded recognition at the negotiating table.

From this perspective, diplomacy is intrinsically a function of objective power, rendering any a priori reliance upon legal mechanisms inherently flawed. It is upon this basis that the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has emphatically underscored the necessity of leaning on domestic strength, while steadfastly avoiding any dependence upon or trust in foreign commitments—particularly those of the United States.

Ayatollah Khamenei had repeatedly characterised the United States as an ‘untrustworthy’, ‘perfidious’ and ‘deceitful’ state, deeming negotiations with it an exercise in futility. Highlighting America's extensive record of broken promises, he has consistently counselled the nation's officials to rely upon domestic capabilities rather than placing their faith in Western assurances. By way of illustration, during an address to the Cabinet on 28 July 2021, he articulated: “Domestic programmes must absolutely not be made contingent upon Western cooperation, for such an approach is intrinsically doomed to fail. Wherever you predicated your endeavours upon the West and negotiations with them—and with America in particular—you were unsuccessful; conversely, wherever you advanced without placing your trust in the West and relinquished your hopes in them, you achieved success and moved forward.” (1)

Consequently, any analysis of contemporary conflicts—including the 12-Day War and the Ramadan War—must be re-evaluated through the prism of this very Iranian realism, a paradigm which locates the demarcation between negotiation and resistance firmly within the concept of 'deterrent power’.

Thus, the present exposition is predicated upon an approach that underscores the primacy of objective power, historical empiricism and a structural distrust towards both bilateral treaties and the international system at large. Crucially, it asserts the absolute precedence of survival and national security over mere nominal commitments.

The United States is a regime that has abrogated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—an accord representing the culmination of the most protracted negotiations in history. Indeed, in the preceding months—prior to the 12-Day War, which commenced on 13 June 2025, and the Ramadan War, which erupted on 28 February 2026—this very regime embarked upon a criminal enterprise. Amidst active negotiations, in a criminal move, it initiated a war—utterly devoid of any legal or customary international legitimacy—by assassinating the Supreme Leader—a towering figure in the historical struggle against oppression and global arrogance—along with his family, and by perpetrating a massacre of innocent schoolgirls at the Shadjareh Tayyebeh School in the city of Minab.

Throughout its history, particularly subsequent to its emergence as the globe's so-called superpower, the United States has frequently assumed the mantle of mediator or guarantor in ceasefires and peace accords, or conversely, has acted as a direct belligerent in conflict. In every such instance, it has brazenly persisted in violating its commitments. A historical review unequivocally demonstrates that this ethos of treaty abrogation and perfidy constitutes a systemic and recurrent behavioural pattern. Mendacity, deception and reneging on promises are the very paradigms of American foreign policy.

Within this duplicitous framework, on the one hand, the violation of obligations by hostile actors has routinely been met with American backing or complicit silence. On the other hand, the United States itself—whether through unilateral withdrawal from international treaties or by exerting pressure upon its allies—has systematically sacrificed adherence to peace agreements at the altar of the vested interests of the war industry's corporate enterprises, or in deference to prioritising its so-called 'national interests’.

An examination of several historical precedents from the past half-century alone serves to substantiate this American chicanery.

1. The Vietnam War, the Paris Accords and the Abandonment of an Ally (1973–1975)

Following years of arduous negotiation, the Paris Peace Accords were signed in 1973 between the United States, North Vietnam and South Vietnam. Under this treaty, the United States committed to a ‘severe response’—including extensive airstrikes—in the event of any ceasefire violations by North Vietnam. Richard Nixon, then US President, reiterated his ‘personal assurances’ to the South Vietnamese leadership regarding their national defence. Merely two years later, in 1975, North Vietnam launched a full-scale offensive. The United States, by then under the administration of Gerald Ford, not only defaulted on its obligations but executed a precipitous withdrawal from the region. South Vietnam collapsed, and thousands of American allies were left to their fate. (2). This serves as a quintessential example of American unreliability—a trait not exclusive to the Trump era, but one woven into the fabric of US history.

2. Afghanistan, the 2020 Doha Agreement and the Fall of Kabul

In February 2020, the Donald Trump administration signed the Doha Agreement with the Taliban. Under this agreement, the United States pledged to withdraw its forces, while the Taliban guaranteed that Afghan soil would not be utilised by terrorist groups and committed to intra-Afghan dialogue. Throughout this process, the elected Afghan government was entirely excluded and subjected to the pressure of ‘Sword of Damocles’ style tweets to accede to American demands. Predictably, the Taliban swiftly violated their commitments, escalating attacks against the Afghan state. Despite these overt breaches, first the Trump administration and subsequently the Biden administration proceeded with the withdrawal. In August 2021, this hurried and ill-conceived retreat culminated in the total collapse of the Afghan government and the Taliban's return to power. (3) This event stands as one of America's gravest diplomatic failures and a symbol of Washington’s disregard for its commitments to its allies.

3. Obstruction of Ceasefires in Gaza (2023–2026)

The most recent manifestation of violating peace and ceasefire pertains to the war in Gaza. Notwithstanding its rhetoric of supporting peace, the United States has repeatedly exercised its veto power within the UN Security Council to block ceasefire resolutions. From October 2023 to as of this writing, the United States has vetoed at least four Security Council resolutions calling for an ‘immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire’. The latest instance occurred in November 2024, when 14 members of the Council voted in favour, and the United States stood alone in blocking the resolution. (4)

4. Unilateral Withdrawal from International Treaties and the Destabilisation of Global Order

Fundamentally, the United States displays no genuine commitment to international treaties. For instance, in May 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an emergency order explicitly demanding that “Israel immediately halt its military offensive in Rafah”. (5) Rather than facilitating the enforcement of this binding ruling, the United States disrupted the international legal process by proposing a hollow resolution in the UN Security Council, thereby granting Israel the opportunity to persist in its operations.

In January 2026, the Trump administration ordered the US withdrawal from 66 international organisations and treaties, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Experts have characterised this move as a catastrophic blow to global cooperation, leading to the scientific and diplomatic isolation of the United States. (6)

Systematic Breaches of Commitment by the United States during the Era of the Islamic Revolution in Iran

Throughout the history of its relations with Iran, the United States has violated numerous obligations, whether enshrined in international agreements or offered as diplomatic assurances. This pattern, persisting from the final years of the Jimmy Carter presidency to the present day, serves as a primary pillar of the profound mistrust towards Washington. Several prominent instances of these breaches are highlight here:

1. The 1981 Algiers Accords, the Hostage Release and Disregarded Obligations

Following the 444-day hostage crisis at the US Embassy, the Algiers Accords were signed in January 1981 between Iran and the United States, facilitated by the Algerian government. This agreement established clear, reciprocal obligations for both parties. (7)

The United States committed to four principal mandates: 1) the unfreezing of approximately $12 billion in Iranian assets 2) non-interference in Iran’s internal and external affairs 3) the lifting of all trade and financial sanctions and 4) the barring of legal claims against Iran within US courts.

Despite being signed as an 'Executive Agreement' rather than a Senate-ratified treaty, subsequent US administrations systematically undermined its provisions. In the decades that followed, the United States continued to support opposition groups and imposed sanctions that far exceeded the framework of the original agreement. (8)

2. The 2003 ‘Grand Bargain’ Proposal and the Bush Administration’s Rejection of a Historic Opportunity

In the spring of 2003, coinciding with the US invasion of Iraq and the fall of Saddam Hussein, the reformist administration of President Mohammad Khatami transmitted a comprehensive proposal to the George W. Bush administration via the Swiss diplomat, Tim Guldimann. This proposal, widely known as the ‘Grand Bargain’, represented a significant historical opportunity for the normalisation of relations based on four fundamental axes:

1) Full transparency in the nuclear programme and the adoption of the Additional Protocol 2) cooperation with the United States to stabilise Iraq 3) the cessation of support for Palestinian groups and the acceptance of a two-state solution and 4) collaborative efforts in the 'War on Terror', including against Al-Qaeda and the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK). (9)

The Bush administration summarily rejected the proposal without formal explanation. International analysts have evaluated this rejection as the “greatest missed opportunity for peace with Iran”. (10) This dismissal, coupled with the 2002 designation of Iran within the so-called ‘Axis of Evil’, underscores a pattern of American bad faith even prior to the formal commencement of negotiations.

3. The 2015 JCPOA and Unilateral Withdrawal Despite Verified Compliance

Despite Iran’s warranted distrust of the United States, to demonstrate the Islamic Republic's commitment to international norms, the JCPOA was signed in 2015 between Iran and the P5+1 (the United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom and Germany), subsequently enshrined within UN Security Council Resolution 2231. (11)

This agreement, achieved after two years of intensive negotiations, was hailed by the international community as a landmark diplomatic triumph. The United States committed to lifting nuclear-related sanctions, refraining from imposing new nuclear-related measures, and facilitating international trade and banking with Iran. (12) Yet, on 8 May 2018, then-President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the agreement, (13) despite repeated certifications from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran remained in full compliance with all its obligations. (14)

The Trump administration immediately reinstated secondary sanctions against Iran and any third-party nations engaging in trade with the Islamic Republic. This move was not only a blatant breach of commitment to Iran but also placed America’s European partners including France, the United Kingdom and Germany (also known as the E3) in a precarious position, compelling them to establish the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX) mechanism to preserve the accord. It aimed to preserve the Iran nuclear deal by supporting humanitarian trade, but was liquidated in March 2023 following minimal usage. Analysts contend that this American action sent a definitive signal to the world that even multilateral agreements endorsed by the UN Security Council lack any guarantee of permanence against a change of administration in Washington. (15)

4. The ‘Maximum Pressure’ Policy (2018–2021), the Abrogation of Multilateralism and the Erosion of Diplomatic Credibility

Following its withdrawal from the JCPOA, the Trump administration pursued the ‘Maximum Pressure’ Policy, which stood in stark contradiction to both the spirit and the letter of previous agreements. The United States imposed sanctions aimed at reducing Iranian oil exports to zero, (16) representing a direct violation of JCPOA commitments.

In March 2025, the US government announced it would not renew the sanctions waiver for Iraq’s purchase of Iranian electricity and gas. (17) The Iranian Foreign Ministry characterised this move as “entirely illegal” and an “admission of lawlessness”. Furthermore, in 2020, the Trump administration attempted to trigger the UN Security Council’s ‘snapback’ mechanism to reinstate all UN sanctions. However, as noted by the E3 powers, the United States was no longer a participant in the agreement following its withdrawal and thus possessed no such legal standing. (18)

5. Violations of Territorial Sovereignty and Covert Operations (2003–2008)

During the George W. Bush presidency, the United States executed a series of interventionist measures against Iran, violating international obligations and the UN Charter. Over the years, Iran repeatedly lodged complaints regarding the incursion of American drones into its airspace. (19) Simultaneously, the Bush administration provided financial and military support to armed opposition groups, such as Jundallah in Sistan and Baluchestan and the Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK) in Iran’s Kurdish regions. (20)

Conclusion: The Mendacity of Trump and the US Administration: The Necessity of Substantive Action and Reliance on ‘Iranian Realism’

The examination of the aforementioned precedents similarly demonstrates that American breaches of commitment regarding ceasefires and peace accords recur within three primary paradigms:

1. Hollow assurances to allies: As evidenced by the cases of South Vietnam and Afghanistan, the United States has historically abandoned its partners at the first sign of shifting political winds.
2. The subversion of international law to shield proxies: This is manifest in the extensive use of the veto power to obstruct peace resolutions against the Israeli regime and to prevent investigations into its own or its allies' atrocities.
3. Unilateral abrogation of key agreements: The systematic abandonment of multilateral diplomacy and the withdrawal from treaties that serve as the very guarantors of global peace and stability.

Consequently, any engagement with such a power must transcend the sphere of rhetorical promises and be predicated upon a rigorous Iranian realism—an approach that prioritises tangible, verified actions and deterrent strength over the ephemeral words of an untrustworthy interlocutor.

In an environment where the rules of engagement are perpetually redefined by hegemonic powers, Iranian realism and pragmatism have emerged as a strategic necessity. By rejecting a passive reliance on legalistic commitments, this approach seeks to re-evaluate the nexus between power and diplomacy. Diplomacy, in this framework, is viewed as an extension of ‘power on the ground’—a tool to consolidate tangible achievements. Within such a paradigm, security is generated by 'imposing costs on the adversary', and agreements are understood merely as transient phases within a continuous power struggle.

Consequently, the future of Iranian foreign policy depends on deepening this logic which is a synthesis of active deterrence, geopolitical leverage and conditional diplomacy. This logic not only facilitates the management of current crises but also possesses the capacity to shape a regional order favourable to Iran’s interests. On this basis, six fundamental strategic approaches are emphasised:

1. Any commitment remains invalid on paper alone; it is substantive action that provides deterrence. Therefore, the total dismantling of the military infrastructure of the United States and the illegal Israeli regime constitutes the basis for continuing the defensive struggle in the Ramadan War. The core of this strategy is a rejection of negotiations and the continuation of war until the complete eradication of US and Israeli military assets in the region, thereby depriving them of the capacity for reconstruction and reinforcing Iranian primacy.
2. The establishment of systematic structures for Iran’s sovereign toll and tariff control power and management of the Strait of Hormuz. This includes the imposition of transit tolls on all goods passing through this strategic waterway—a practice common in the Suez Canal in Egypt, the Panama Canal, and the Turkish Straits of Bosphorus and Dardanelles. As the conduit for 25% of global energy, the Strait of Hormuz is the world’s most vital maritime artery, passing through the shared territorial waters of Iran and Oman. Iran must, in practice, deploy all necessary customs and control apparatuses along this route.
3. Given the inherent mistrust of American commitments, war reparations must be deposited into the official accounts of the Islamic Republic of Iran before any cessation of hostilities. Until such payments are rendered, the war shall continue with full force.
4. Prior to any declaration of the end of the war by Iran, the United States must formally and publicly accept and declare responsibility for the killing of Iranian citizens and compatriots.
5. All adversarial leaders and activists who provided media or logistical support to the United States and Israel during the Ramadan War—including leaders of the Iranian opposition—must be formally extradited to Iran. The war shall persist until such individuals are handed over.
6. An immediate and concurrent halt to the war against Iran’s allies, including the oppressed people of Gaza and Hamas, Lebanese Hezbollah, Yemen’s Ansarullah, and the Iraqi Al-Hashd al-Shaabi.

Based on Iranian realism, formal diplomacy regarding commitments and accords is currently devoid of efficacy. Instead, the focus shall shift to public diplomacy to inform global opinion across West Asia, Europe, America and Southeast Asia as a complement to the deterrence strategy. All strategic decisions regarding war and peace shall remain centralised under the principle of Unified Command, directed by the new Leader of the Revolution and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, Ayatollah Sayyid Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei, within the Supreme National Security Council and the Joint Staff of the Armed Forces.

For the time being, strategic wartime decisions are relegated to the 'war room', and all forms of formal diplomacy concerning treaties shall be avoided. This pragmatic approach, by transcending ceremonial diplomacy and relying upon the realities of the field, secures Iran’s national interests and ensures sustainable security.