Last week, American and Iranian diplomats sat down in Geneva for further talks mediated by Oman. The results seemed uncertain. Iran said there had been “good progress,” while the United States insisted there had been “some progress.” Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump renewed his threat to attack Iran.
In recent weeks, there has been a major military buildup of U.S. forces in the Middle East in preparation for what many observers see as an imminent attack. In this context, some may wonder whether the current negotiations are not simply a tactic to buy time to prepare for the inevitable.
Some suggest that in the face of U.S. military power, Iran’s only option is to negotiate a deal with the United States, even if it is unfair. Iran’s military might be no match for the world’s largest and most budgeted military, but accepting surrender through a weakening deal that could be broken again by Washington may not necessarily be Iran’s only option.
There is another way for Iran to stand up to U.S. bullying and win.
The outcome of past negotiations
The ongoing talks between the United States and Iran cannot be viewed in isolation. For Iran, any diplomatic engagement with the United States is overshadowed by the legacy of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
The agreement was signed in 2015 by the United States, China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, the European Union, and Iran, and offered sanctions relief in exchange for full transparency of Iran’s nuclear program. The Iranian government accepted the deal despite unfair terms, including some remaining U.S. sanctions.
Nevertheless, it fulfilled its duty. This is a fact repeatedly verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
But in return, the US, a signatory, did not support ending the agreement. In 2018, President Trump unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA and reimposed maximum pressure sanctions aimed at crippling Iran’s economy.
It was a stark reminder that U.S. commitments are not binding. As a leader who pursues an “America First” policy with no regard for the interests of America’s allies, President Trump can hardly be expected to respect the interests of America’s adversaries.
But even with a Democratic president in the White House, there would have been no guarantee that the JCPOA would have been upheld. In America’s polarized political climate, the US president’s signature is only valid until the next election.
For the United States, negotiations may be little more than a sham designed to lull adversaries into a false sense of security. Last year, just as U.S. and Iranian representatives were scheduled to meet in Oman for another round of talks, Israel, a major U.S. ally, launched a major military operation against Iran.
The United States denied direct involvement, but admitted it had received advance notice. Given the close ties between the two countries, this prior knowledge strongly suggested that the United States had acquiesced in the air strikes against Israel.
Now, Iran is negotiating again with the United States and is under pressure to accept an even more unfair deal. If it backs down and complies with US demands, President Trump, who appears to be exploiting weakness, will only move the goalposts. Demand will shift from Iran’s nuclear program today to ballistic missiles tomorrow to regime change the day after tomorrow.
The special relationship between the United States and Israel means that the U.S. government is fundamentally hostile to the Iranian government, which views the state of Israel as an enemy. Therefore, President Trump’s goal is not to reach a lasting agreement but to ensure that Iran can never fully comply with President Trump’s demands, thereby justifying a persistent campaign of maximum pressure and hostility.
Given this situation and recent experience, it would be foolish for Iran to rely on U.S. commitments or negotiated agreements.
Taking advantage of strong local ties
The current conflict between the United States and Iran is a high-stakes game that is likely to lead to all-out war. While overwhelming military superiority could give the United States an initial victory, it could also be bogged down in a protracted counter-insurgency battle in Iran’s mountainous regions.
Conversely, Iran could eventually repel the American invasion, as neighboring Afghanistan did, but the country would be reduced to rubble in the process.
That doesn’t mean Iran should withdraw. The Greenland crisis and the US-China trade war show that President Trump’s sword-wielding tendencies are tempered by an aversion to loss. The EU and China are far more powerful than Iran, but a clear show of resolve could force Trump to retreat.
And the Iranian government is not the only one that needs to rebel. There are other major companies in the neighborhood who are realizing that it is not in their interests to see another devastating U.S.-led war. Iran can and should take advantage of its desire for regional stability.
Iran has long pursued a policy of confrontation in the region, but has found that carving out a sphere of influence actually exacerbates its security dilemma. This recognition ultimately led to the historic normalization of diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia in 2023. This was a breakthrough facilitated by China, Oman, and Iraq that began a broader détente with other Arab states.
Three years later, that decision is paying off. Notably, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Turkiye, and Qatar are lobbying President Trump for restraint. Building on this neighborhood diplomacy and investing in the development of regional stability and security structures could help prevent another major U.S. war in the region.
The most important path to peace, and the only means of countering American gunboat diplomacy, lies not in matching American military power, a competition that Iran is doomed to lose, but in establishing good relations with its neighbors and accepting regional stability as part of its national security.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
