The Third Round of Iran Nuclear Talks: Strategic Posturing, Diplomatic Paralysis, and the Illusion of Progress

by Irina Tsukerman

The third round of U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations, held in April 2025 in Muscat, Oman, was expected to serve as a pivotal moment in reshaping the contours of nuclear diplomacy. Instead, it reinforced longstanding tensions, underscored the widening asymmetry between Washington and Tehran, and exposed the fundamental flaws in America’s negotiating posture. As President Trump’s delegation—cobbled together and tactically uncertain—stumbled through a diplomatic maze designed by Iran’s seasoned strategists, Abbas Araghchi and his team played the long game, leveraging patience, ambiguity, and regional alliances to their advantage. The result was not a breakthrough but a recalibration of power, where Tehran dictated terms, Washington scrambled for relevance, and global stakeholders watched the erosion of U.S. leverage unfold. This paper examines the core themes emerging from Muscat: Iran’s methodical brinkmanship, America’s fractured approach, and the broader implications of mismanaged diplomacy in the region.

The Third Round of U.S.-Iran Nuclear Talks: A Diplomatic Misstep in Muscat

The third round of U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, held in April 2025 in Muscat, Oman, was billed as a potential turning point in the increasingly fractious relationship between the two countries. After two years of initial tentative talks under the Biden administration, President Trump’s second term delegation—often characterized as ad hoc and inexperienced—found itself facing off against a seasoned, strategic Iranian team led by Abbas Araghchi. The atmosphere in Muscat was heavy with expectation, but the outcomes were underwhelming. Rather than breakthroughs, the negotiations highlighted the key weaknesses of the U.S. team, the growing assertiveness of Iran, and the intricate power dynamics that have long defined nuclear diplomacy.

While the talks were framed as an attempt to push the needle toward a broader agreement, they ultimately yielded only temporary and fragile agreements. The most notable of these included Iran’s pledge to freeze its uranium enrichment to 60% for the next 18 months and grant limited access to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors. In exchange, the U.S. offered some minor sanctions relief and the promise of further discussions to address a range of regional concerns. However, these agreements remained vague and short-term in nature, and many analysts expressed skepticism about their long-term viability. What emerged from Muscat was not a new deal but a continuation of a diplomatic deadlock that has plagued the U.S.-Iran relationship for over a decade.

Iran’s Strength: Strategic Cohesion, Experience, and Tactical Mastery

At the heart of Iran’s diplomatic strength in Muscat was Abbas Araghchi, a man who has been at the forefront of Iran’s nuclear negotiations for over a decade. Araghchi’s experience dates back to his role as Deputy Foreign Minister during the original 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) talks, and his deep understanding of nuclear diplomacy has made him a formidable negotiator. He has also held key positions in Iran’s foreign policy apparatus, which has given him a nuanced understanding of the broader regional and geopolitical challenges that shape Iran’s approach to nuclear talks.

In Muscat, Araghchi’s team took a strategic, patient approach, fully aware that the longer the talks drag on, the more Iran’s nuclear capabilities would grow, thereby strengthening its negotiating position. In exchange for temporary limitations on uranium enrichment, Iran pushed for significant concessions, including expanded access to nuclear technology, further sanctions relief, and the right to continue developing its missile program. This reflects a central tenet of Iran’s negotiating strategy: that the nuclear talks are just one front in a broader, long-term geopolitical struggle.

Iran also leveraged its regional relationships to assert its dominance in the negotiations. Tehran has long maintained close ties with Moscow and Beijing, both of whom provide critical diplomatic and economic support. Russia and China, as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, are often able to mitigate the international pressure that the U.S. seeks to apply on Iran. These alliances enable Iran to pursue a nuclear program while keeping its regional ambitions intact, knowing that the international community—especially in the West—has limited options to confront Iran’s multifaceted strategy.

The U.S. Weakness: Fragmentation, Inexperience, and Strategic Missteps

In stark contrast to Iran’s well-oiled diplomatic machine, the U.S. delegation was a patchwork of inexperienced officials, many of whom lacked the technical expertise required to navigate the complexities of nuclear diplomacy. The U.S. negotiating team was primarily composed of officials with limited experience in the field of nuclear arms control, including Steve Witkoff, a former senior U.S. diplomat with a history of connections to Russian and Qatari interests, and Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), whose isolationist tendencies and past rhetoric on Iran had raised concerns within the administration.

Witkoff’s “real estate diplomacy” background did not prepare him for the high-stakes nature of nuclear negotiations. His ties to Russia and Qatar, two countries with differing strategic interests from the U.S., raised questions about his ability to effectively represent U.S. interests without external biases influencing his actions. Gabbard’s isolationist policies, which had often led her to downplay the threat posed by Iran, made her role in the negotiations even more problematic. She had previously suggested that the U.S. should end its hostile stance toward Iran, arguing that the U.S. should focus on domestic priorities instead of international interventions. While her position on reducing U.S. military presence in the Middle East aligns with Trump’s "America First" foreign policy, it undermined the team’s credibility in a delicate nuclear negotiation, where maintaining a strong stance on nonproliferation is paramount.

Beyond individual figures, the U.S. team’s broader approach was characterized by disorganization and lack of cohesion. There was no unified strategy, and the delegation’s lack of technical expertise left them vulnerable when dealing with the technical details of Iran’s nuclear program. The Muscat talks were full of moments where the U.S. seemed unprepared for Iran’s demands, and where concessions were made without securing sufficient guarantees in return. Iran, meanwhile, took advantage of these gaps, consistently shifting the goalposts in ways that benefitted their long-term strategy.

The Technical Aspects: A Game of Inches, Where Iran Has the Upper Hand

The nuclear negotiations were primarily centered around Iran’s uranium enrichment capabilities and its stockpiles of enriched uranium. The U.S. demanded that Iran freeze its enrichment levels, particularly to a lower threshold of 3.67%, in line with the JCPOA limits, while also urging Iran to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium. However, these technical demands were countered by Iran’s insistence that its nuclear program was peaceful, and that it had a right to enrich uranium for civil purposes.

Iran’s technical advancements in uranium enrichment were also a key factor in the talks. Since 2015, Iran had significantly improved its centrifuge technology, with more advanced IR-6 and IR-8 models that allowed it to enrich uranium at a much faster rate. These advancements gave Iran the ability to achieve nuclear breakout capacity in a fraction of the time it would have taken under the original terms of the JCPOA. In response, Iran demanded the right to continue developing these advanced centrifuges, arguing that they were necessary for its peaceful nuclear energy program.

At Muscat, Iran offered to freeze enrichment to 60% purity for the next 18 months—a concession aimed at temporarily easing international pressure. However, this freeze was only a short-term solution, and it did not address the underlying issue: Iran’s growing nuclear infrastructure and its ability to quickly ramp up enrichment once the freeze expired. Furthermore, the U.S. struggled to secure any meaningful long-term restrictions on Iran’s missile program or other nuclear activities, such as research and development of next-generation centrifuges. In essence, the U.S. was bargaining for temporary limitations on Iran’s nuclear program, without addressing the root causes of the nuclear challenge.

Mistrust and the Art of Tactical Negotiation

Mistrust between the U.S. and Iran has always been a significant obstacle in the negotiations, and it was palpable throughout the third round of talks in Muscat. Both sides have a long history of suspicion, and each has used past mistakes to justify their current positions. For Iran, the U.S. is an unreliable partner, as evidenced by the Trump administration’s unilateral withdrawal from the 2015 JCPOA and the subsequent “maximum pressure” campaign. For the U.S., Iran’s history of non-compliance with international agreements, coupled with its regional destabilization efforts, has created a perception that Tehran cannot be trusted to honor any future nuclear deal.

This mutual mistrust has been exacerbated by the U.S. tendency to treat tactical negotiations as if they were strategic shifts. In Muscat, the U.S. seemed willing to accept short-term tactical victories—such as temporary freezes on uranium enrichment and promises of future inspections—in exchange for Iranian promises of future cooperation. However, Iran’s strategy has long been to play the long game, using tactical negotiations to buy time and further its broader geopolitical objectives. This difference in negotiating styles was evident throughout the talks, with Iran pushing for incremental gains and the U.S. scrambling to secure immediate concessions.

One key mistake the U.S. continues to make in its negotiations with Iran is its tendency to walk away from talks in frustration, only to return with new concessions in hand. This cycle of on-again, off-again negotiations has created an impression of desperation on the part of the U.S., which has been all too willing to compromise in order to avoid a breakdown in talks. In contrast, Iran has shown a remarkable ability to stay patient and focused on its long-term objectives. This is a major factor in why Iran consistently outplays the U.S. in these negotiations.

A Legacy of Manufactured Mistrust: How Iran Turned Myth Into Strategy

No matter the season in Washington or the faction in Tehran, one atmospheric constant shapes the diplomatic climate: deep-seated, ritualized, and strategically cultivated mistrust between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. But let’s be clear — this is not a mutual misunderstanding between well-meaning but culturally divergent powers. This is a weaponized narrative, used skillfully and cynically by the Iranian regime to insulate itself from internal reform, external scrutiny, and geopolitical accountability.

Iran’s leadership loves to sermonize about “historical grievances.” Chief among them? The endlessly cited “1953 coup,” which the Islamic Republic claims was orchestrated by the CIA to topple Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and reinstall the Shah. But here’s the truth Tehran never quite gets around to: this wasn’t a CIA “takeover” in any meaningful strategic sense. Mossadegh’s erratic policies, nationalization of British oil assets, and alienation of key domestic stakeholders had already put him on the verge of collapse. The British pushed for action, and the U.S. gave tacit support in the context of Cold War fears. The idea that this was a grand imperialist regime-change operation is Iranian propaganda cosplay — useful for rallying the IRGC rank-and-file, but factually bankrupt.

Still, Tehran has turned this narrative into a mythological cornerstone of regime identity. From Ayatollah Khamenei’s Friday sermons to IRGC ideological indoctrination programs, the “1953 betrayal” is trotted out to justify everything from uranium enrichment to hostage diplomacy. The deeper irony? This regime — born in 1979 by storming a U.S. embassy and holding diplomats hostage — now plays the victim card like a battered spouse accusing the firefighter of arson.

Strategic Mistrust as Statecraft

But this isn’t just historical noise. The Islamic Republic has elevated mistrust into a doctrine. Tehran’s negotiating strategy is not built around reconciliation — it is built around extractive delay, ambiguity as leverage, and the art of managing escalation. When trust breaks down, Western negotiators stall; when trust breaks down for Iran, it thrives.

On the American side, the mistrust is real — and based on lived experience. Since 1979, Iran has sponsored anti-American terror, built a covert nuclear infrastructure, armed proxies across the region, and plotted assassinations on U.S. soil. It chants “Death to America” with theological vigor, while occasionally buying Western aircraft parts on the side. There’s nothing ambiguous here — just an adversarial state that speaks softly to the West while sharpening knives for regional allies.

The West — especially the U.S. — has a recurring bad habit of treating this mistrust as a communication problem, rather than a regime feature. The JCPOA was the poster child of that delusion. The Obama-era negotiators, from John Kerry to Wendy Sherman, treated trust-building as both a goal and a method — offering sanctions relief, repatriated funds, and a seat at the diplomatic table, all in the name of re-integrating Iran into the international system.

Tehran took the money and ran.

From JCPOA to Trump 2.0: Same Game, Different Players

Fast-forward a decade, and the Trump 2.0 administration now finds itself awkwardly reprising the same playbook, albeit with fewer credentials and far more internal incoherence. Unlike Obama’s technocratic faith in diplomacy, the current team has no unified theory of Iran — or foreign policy at all. Gone are the disciplined hawks like Mike Pompeo and Brian Hook. In their place? A revolving door of inexperienced advisors like Steven Witkoff, whose financial entanglements with Qatar and possible Russian influencers raise eyebrows, and DNI Tulsi Gabbard, whose quasi-isolationist rhetoric regularly echoes Tehran’s own framing of U.S. foreign policy as “imperialist overreach.”

This lack of strategic clarity creates a vacuum Iran can exploit. While Araghchi, Iran’s seasoned lead negotiator, brings decades of nuclear expertise and plays chess on a geopolitical board he knows by heart, the Trump team is stuck debating talking points drafted by think tanks more interested in owning the libs than restraining Iran’s centrifuges. Worse, the administration’s internal contradictions — part populist retrenchment, part transactional opportunism — have left the Iran file dangling between optics-driven diplomacy and policy paralysis.

And Iran knows it. Araghchi doesn’t view mistrust as a hindrance — it’s his opening gambit. He speaks the language of process, obfuscates technical facts behind lawyerly prose, and treats every pause in talks as a chance to build leverage. His mission isn’t to “fix” the nuclear issue. It’s to keep it alive — just unstable enough to keep Western powers interested, but never so explosive that it triggers war.

Washington’s Habitual Mistake: Mistaking Tactics for Strategy

The core problem in Washington isn’t ideological confusion — it’s structural misreading. American diplomats routinely mistake tactical signals for strategic shifts. A temporary de-escalation? Proof that Iran wants peace. A softer tone in Vienna? Signs of reform. A few prisoner swaps? Evidence of goodwill. None of it ever is.

Washington remains the only capital in the world that treats negotiations with Tehran as a means of redemption — an opportunity to fix the relationship. Tehran sees talks as a chance to buy time, divide allies, win economic breathing room, and neutralize external pressure. The U.S. wants a legacy. Iran wants latitude.

And when Iran senses that America wants the deal more than Tehran does, it tightens the screws. As Khamenei has put it bluntly: negotiations are war by other means. For Iran, trust is not a virtue; it’s a weakness to be exploited.

Containment, Not Catharsis: What the U.S. Should Actually Be Doing

Here’s the hard truth: Iran doesn’t want to be reformed. It wants to remain revolutionary, hegemonic, and ideologically hostile to the West. Mistrust isn’t an obstacle to overcome — it’s the operating system. So the U.S. must stop trying to reboot diplomacy and instead rewire its own strategy.

Treat mistrust as structural and permanent. Iran’s ideological DNA is anti-American. Any negotiation must begin with the assumption that Tehran cannot be reformed—only contained. Deals must be short, verifiable, and punitive upon violation — not frameworks for imagined normalization.

Elevate strategic alignment with Europe, Israel, and Gulf allies. These are the actors most vulnerable to Iranian escalation — and the ones most attuned to its deceptive cycles. Their threat assessments are grounded in daily experience, not diplomatic fantasy. Washington should let regional partners set red lines, not Foggy Bottom theorists recycling a Cold War playbook.

Adopt a containment-first, negotiation-second posture. Deterrence must come before dialogue, not the other way around. Iran’s behavior only changes when the cost becomes unbearable. Enforce red lines consistently, punish proxy aggression with direct consequences, and isolate Tehran diplomatically — especially at the IAEA, UN, and SWIFT.

Build sanctions not as punishment, but as leverage architecture. The point of economic pressure isn’t moral catharsis; it’s strategic bargaining power. The Trump team should abandon dreams of splashy deals and instead focus on enforcement, interdiction, and credibility.

Stop negotiating with yourself. Every time Washington signals desperation — whether through leaks, press spin, or phantom timelines — Iran takes note. Talks should be silent, pressure public. Not the other way around.

Until U.S. strategy stops oscillating between moral outrage and naïve optimism, Iran will continue to win the long game — because it’s playing one. Washington, by contrast, is still stuck believing that diplomacy is about solving problems. Tehran knows it’s about managing threats while building power.

2015 JCPOA vs. 2025 Talks: A Study in Continuity

When comparing the 2015 JCPOA to the 2025 negotiations, it’s clear that the U.S. has fallen into the same traps that doomed the original agreement. In 2015, the Obama administration focused on reaching a comprehensive deal, which ultimately allowed Iran to keep much of its nuclear infrastructure in place, while the U.S. made significant concessions in terms of sanctions relief and military disengagement from the region. The hope was that this deal would pave the way for broader stability in the Middle East, but instead, it allowed Iran to expand its regional influence and continue advancing its nuclear program.

Fast forward to 2025, and the U.S. is again making similar mistakes. The negotiations in Muscat were framed as an attempt to halt Iran’s nuclear progress, but the temporary agreements reached were insufficient to address the long-term challenges. The U.S. has once again allowed Iran to retain significant nuclear infrastructure, including the ability to rapidly escalate its enrichment capacity once the temporary constraints are lifted. Meanwhile, Iran’s regional activities—its support for proxy groups in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, as well as its missile development program—have gone largely unaddressed.

Policy Recommendations: A New Approach to U.S.-Iran Diplomacy

If the U.S. is serious about addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, it must adopt a more cohesive and long-term strategy, recalibrating its approach to account for Iran's strategic brinkmanship, and focusing on alliances that are key to the region's stability. The current trajectory of U.S. diplomacy in Muscat has shown the need for a shift toward a more integrated, multi-lateral strategy that involves key regional players like Israel and the anti-Iran Arab states, along with Europe.

Strengthen Regional Alliances (Israel, Arab States, and Europe)

Rather than relying on China and Russia, which are often more concerned with maintaining their own interests in the region, the U.S. should build stronger ties with its allies who have a direct stake in curbing Iran’s nuclear capabilities and regional destabilization efforts. This means aligning more closely with Israel and the Arab Gulf states—Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain—all of whom view Iran’s nuclear development and regional influence as an existential threat.

Israel, in particular, is a critical partner. With its own technological and intelligence capabilities, Israel plays a key role in monitoring and responding to Iran’s nuclear activities. As evidenced by the covert operations against Iran’s nuclear program, Israel is willing to take direct action if diplomacy fails, and its insight into Iran’s nuclear infrastructure could provide essential leverage for the U.S. in negotiations. The U.S. needs to synchronize its efforts with Israel and ensure that any agreement reached does not threaten Israel’s security, either directly or indirectly.

The Arab states in the Gulf—especially Saudi Arabia and the UAE—have long been at the forefront of confronting Iranian regional ambitions. These countries are increasingly concerned with the growing strength of Iran’s proxy forces and its expanding missile capabilities. The U.S. should leverage its relationship with these states to ensure that Iran faces diplomatic and economic pressure from its neighbors, making it clear that any nuclear agreement will require tangible commitments to halt its regional destabilization activities.

Europe should also be brought into the fold, particularly the European Union’s foreign policy apparatus. Europe, which has traditionally been more sympathetic to Iran, can serve as a mediator but should be aligned with the U.S. in pushing for a more comprehensive, long-term deal. European countries, especially Germany and France, are critical in maintaining the balance of diplomatic pressure on Iran and should be instrumental in ensuring any agreement is upheld and followed through.

Demand Comprehensive, Regional Security Arrangements

A nuclear agreement with Iran should not be pursued in isolation. Any deal must address the full spectrum of Iranian activities, from nuclear proliferation to its missile development, and its destabilizing influence in the region. The U.S. should use its position as a global power to broker a broader regional security framework that involves not just the nuclear issue but also Iran’s sponsorship of militias and its growing missile capabilities.

The U.S. should push for a multilateral security agreement that includes Israel and its Arab allies, aiming to curb Iran’s regional ambitions through diplomatic, economic, and military means. This would require clear commitments from Iran to halt the development of long-range missiles, cease support for proxy groups, and engage in more transparent diplomatic relations with its neighbors. In exchange, the U.S. could offer gradual sanctions relief, contingent upon Iran’s behavior on these fronts.

Tackle Nuclear Inspections and Transparency

One of the key failures of past negotiations has been the inadequate verification mechanisms that allowed Iran to bypass certain restrictions. Any future deal must include robust, permanent, and intrusive monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), with unfettered access to all of Iran’s nuclear facilities, including military sites suspected of being used for nuclear research.

The U.S. should push for an agreement that ties any sanctions relief to strict and verifiable commitments from Iran to provide comprehensive, unimpeded access for inspectors. These inspections should not be limited to a specific timeframe or certain facilities but should be indefinite, with random, surprise inspections included as a non-negotiable component of any deal.

Avoid Short-Term Concessions and Incrementalism

The U.S. must resist the urge to make short-term concessions that may seem like a win but ultimately do little to constrain Iran’s nuclear ambitions in the long run. The temporary freezes on enrichment that have been part of past agreements—like the one agreed upon in Muscat—may be useful as a tactical measure to prevent immediate escalation, but they fail to address the root causes of the nuclear crisis.

Instead, the U.S. should focus on ensuring that any agreement provides permanent, irreversible limits on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, including a long-term freeze on its enrichment capabilities, the dismantling of advanced centrifuges, and the removal of existing stockpiles of enriched uranium. These measures should not be contingent on short-term political cycles or economic interests, but on Iran’s genuine commitment to nonproliferation.

Engage in Tactical Negotiation with Strategic Vision

One of the most significant challenges for U.S. negotiators has been Iran’s strategic brinkmanship. Iran excels at pushing the limits of negotiations, constantly testing the resolve of the U.S. and its allies. This is a deliberate strategy, one in which Iran plays for time, testing the patience of the West while continuing to expand its nuclear capabilities.

The U.S. must adapt its negotiating strategy to deal with Iran’s propensity for brinkmanship. This involves being prepared for extended negotiations and recognizing that Iran may not make immediate, sweeping concessions. The U.S. needs to demonstrate unwavering consistency in its demands and avoid the temptation to “walk away” from talks prematurely, a mistake that has plagued previous administrations.

The U.S. must also resist the tendency to treat tactical negotiations as strategic breakthroughs. While short-term freezes and limited agreements may offer temporary relief, they must not be mistaken for meaningful progress. Instead, the U.S. should make clear that any agreement must be comprehensive, addressing all aspects of Iran’s nuclear program and regional behavior, with clear and verifiable milestones.

In this vein, the U.S. needs to use Iran’s brinkmanship against it. The U.S. should signal that it is prepared to walk away from talks entirely if Iran refuses to make meaningful concessions on key issues. However, this needs to be done with a calculated approach—ensuring that the U.S. is not seen as weak, but also ensuring that walking away does not signal a lack of commitment to diplomacy. The goal is to maintain the upper hand, making it clear that any future deal will come with significant commitments and consequences.

A Comprehensive, Strategic, and Long-Term Approach

The U.S. has made significant mistakes in its approach to Iran, especially in the wake of the 2015 JCPOA, where the focus on short-term agreements and temporary freezes failed to address Iran’s long-term nuclear ambitions. The third round of talks in Muscat demonstrated the same weaknesses in U.S. strategy, with the delegation’s inexperience and fragmented approach to diplomacy leaving room for Iran to outmaneuver the West.

Moving forward, the U.S. must rethink its strategy. Rather than relying on piecemeal agreements or temporary fixes, the U.S. needs to pursue a comprehensive, long-term strategy that involves its strongest regional allies—Israel, the anti-Iran Arab states, and Europe—and focuses on permanent, verifiable restrictions on Iran’s nuclear capabilities. By adopting a more cohesive and strategic approach, one that integrates regional security concerns, nuclear nonproliferation, and diplomatic leverage, the U.S. may finally be able to navigate the intricate web of U.S.-Iran negotiations and work toward a lasting resolution to the nuclear crisis.

A Better Path Forward

The third round of negotiations in Muscat revealed the deepening divide between the U.S. and Iran, and the challenges of securing a long-term resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue. Iran has continued to outmaneuver the U.S. at the negotiating table, using its strategic alliances, technical expertise, and patience to gain leverage. The U.S. must change its approach, moving away from short-term tactical concessions and toward a comprehensive, long-term strategy that addresses not only Iran’s nuclear program but also its destabilizing regional actions. Only then can the U.S. hope to achieve a lasting agreement that ensures both nonproliferation and regional stability.

Lebanon: The Proxy Playground and General Jeffries’ Visit

Lebanon, perched precariously between Syria and Israel, is often the first place where regional tensions come to a head. While Lebanon’s geographical position makes it a strategic chessboard, it’s Hezbollah—Iran’s foremost proxy in the region—that has transformed Lebanon into a hotbed of regional instability. Hezbollah, armed and financed by Tehran, has historically acted as Iran’s muscle in the Levant, disrupting the balance of power in Lebanon and across the Middle East.

But the real significance of Lebanon in the context of the U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations goes beyond just Hezbollah. It ties into the broader question of Iranian influence throughout the region, which, of course, raises the stakes for Lebanon itself. If the U.S. makes a deal with Iran that fails to address Hezbollah’s role in Lebanon and the militia’s support of Iran’s regional ambitions, it risks seeing Lebanon further entangled in Tehran’s webs of influence. The U.S. cannot afford to treat Lebanon merely as collateral damage in these talks—it’s a front-line state, and its stability is integral to regional peace.

Enter General Jeffries, a pivotal figure whose visit to Lebanon in 2025 carried significant weight in the context of these negotiations. As a senior U.S. military official, General Jeffries’ visit was not just a routine diplomatic mission—it was a clear signal that the U.S. is still invested in Lebanon’s security and sovereignty, especially as Iran tightens its grip on the region.

Jeffries’ visit had several important layers, particularly when it comes to Lebanon’s internal security situation. Hezbollah has positioned itself as a state within a state in Lebanon, holding sway over both the government and the military. Given that Lebanon has historically been plagued by political infighting and sectarian conflict, Hezbollah’s influence has made it difficult for the Lebanese government to make sovereign decisions without Iranian interference.

In his discussions with Lebanese officials and military leaders, General Jeffries made it clear that the U.S. would not allow Lebanon to become an Iranian stronghold. This was a message to Tehran, to Hezbollah, and to the U.S. allies in the region. The visit signaled that Lebanon was not an afterthought in the U.S. strategy and that any agreement made with Iran at Muscat would need to address Hezbollah’s growing power. While the U.S. cannot simply dismantle Hezbollah overnight, it can pressure Iran to limit Hezbollah’s scope of action by ensuring that Lebanon doesn’t become a launching pad for Iranian military or proxy operations.

But the visit’s significance goes deeper. It wasn’t just about sending a message to Hezbollah or Iran—it was about reaffirming the U.S.’s commitment to Lebanon as a partner in regional stability. The Lebanese military is an important ally in this respect, especially in the context of counterterrorism and limiting the influence of extremist groups in the region. U.S. military aid and training have been key to building Lebanon’s defense capabilities, and General Jeffries used his visit to underscore that commitment. This is a strategic move, reminding both Iran and Lebanon that the U.S. has both military and diplomatic tools at its disposal to protect Lebanese sovereignty.

Additionally, Jeffries’ visit was symbolic in its broader messaging to the Gulf and Israeli allies. The Gulf states and Israel are watching Lebanon closely, especially given their own security concerns about Iranian expansionism. By reaffirming U.S. support for Lebanon’s security, the U.S. is reassuring these key regional players that its interests in the region remain strong and intact. In this sense, the visit was also a subtle nod to those allies, signaling that Lebanon would not be abandoned in the wake of a potential nuclear deal with Iran.

Moreover, General Jeffries’ visit also tied directly into the broader issue of Iranian brinkmanship. Lebanon is, in many ways, the canary in the coal mine when it comes to the long-term consequences of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. If Iran is allowed to proliferate its nuclear program unchecked, Hezbollah will become even more emboldened. This would create a destabilizing effect on Lebanon, turning it into an even greater regional flashpoint. The visit thus underscored the U.S.’s intention to counterbalance Iran’s regional ambitions, ensuring that Iran’s nuclear program isn’t simply a matter of bombs and centrifuges, but also a matter of the power Iran can project through its proxies.

The timing of Jeffries' visit was crucial, as it came right as the third round of talks in Muscat was underway. It signaled to Tehran that the U.S. was not just engaged in nuclear negotiations in the Gulf but was also actively pushing back against Iranian regional influence. It was a reminder that the U.S. has multiple levers of influence and that any nuclear deal with Iran would need to consider the broader strategic balance across the region.

In short, Lebanon’s role in the Iran nuclear talks isn’t just a peripheral issue—it’s central to the U.S.'s broader strategy for Middle East security. The country’s precarious position as a proxy battleground for Iran’s regional ambitions means that any nuclear deal with Iran will have deep implications for Lebanon’s future stability. General Jeffries’ visit highlighted the fact that the U.S. remains committed to keeping Lebanon free from Iranian influence, both in terms of military support for Hezbollah and broader political interference. This ensures that any diplomatic resolution with Iran does not come at the expense of Lebanon’s sovereignty, while also signaling to both Tehran and its regional adversaries that the U.S. is watching closely and will not let the region be destabilized on its watch.

As negotiations continue, it’s clear that Lebanon’s fate cannot be ignored in the broader dialogue with Iran. The U.S. must take a multifaceted approach, balancing the nuclear issue with the broader geopolitical and security concerns in the region. General Jeffries’ visit underscores that Lebanon’s stability is not just a matter for the Lebanese people—it’s a matter for U.S. and regional security as well.

The Gulf, Israel, and the U.S. Strategy: A Delicate Balancing Act

The Gulf states and Israel find themselves at a crucial crossroads when it comes to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The U.S., though entangled in the diplomacy of its nuclear talks, must consider these regional players not merely as external spectators, but as vital stakeholders in the game. Their security concerns—shaped by decades of tension with Iran—have grown more acute as Iran’s nuclear program progresses, especially as Iran’s regional reach extends through proxies, militias, and direct military presence. For these countries, the question isn't just about whether Iran will develop nuclear weapons—it’s about how to prevent Iran from gaining an even stronger foothold in the region while not tipping the scale toward open conflict.

The Gulf States: Fear and Opportunism in Equal Measure

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a bloc of six nations including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, and Kuwait, is united in its apprehension about Iran’s nuclear trajectory. But beneath the surface, each member has distinct concerns, often shaped by their own relationships with the U.S., Iran, and one another. Saudi Arabia and the UAE, both major military players and economic powerhouses, have long been at odds with Iran, seeing it as a regional hegemon that threatens the Sunni-majority Arab world. Qatar, though a member of the GCC, maintains closer ties to Iran, particularly in economic and diplomatic realms. Bahrain, which hosts a significant U.S. naval presence, is concerned about its own internal stability, fearing Iranian-backed Shia militias could destabilize its fragile monarchy. Oman, historically seen as a neutral player, has acted as a quiet mediator in various regional disputes, including the Iran nuclear talks.

At the heart of these concerns lies the Gulf’s strategic dilemma: how to balance the need for American support and the need to assert their own interests in the face of Iranian aggression. For the Gulf, Iran’s nuclear capabilities are not just a question of power but a matter of survival. A nuclear-capable Iran would tip the balance of power in favor of the Shia-led, ideologically rigid Tehran, further emboldening Iran’s militias across the region and potentially paving the way for a nuclear arms race in the Gulf. The UAE, for instance, is already pursuing its own nuclear program (ostensibly for peaceful purposes), and Saudi Arabia has repeatedly signaled that it will follow suit if Iran crosses the nuclear threshold.

From the Gulf’s perspective, Iran’s nuclear ambitions are existential. The fear isn’t just about Iran's weapons; it’s about Iran’s proven ability to leverage its nuclear program as a bargaining chip to extract political and military concessions. As seen in previous rounds of negotiations, Iran's ability to practice brinkmanship—manipulating the balance of tension to secure strategic gains—has become a cornerstone of its negotiating strategy. This tactical maneuvering heightens the stakes for the Gulf, and by extension, the U.S., which must navigate these concerns in a way that ensures Gulf stability without further alienating Iran.

In practical terms, the U.S. strategy has been to reassure the Gulf states of its commitment to their security, even while it engages Iran diplomatically. The Biden administration, and now Trump 2.0, has repeatedly emphasized its "ironclad" support for Gulf allies, but this commitment has been tested by several factors, not least of which is the perception of American disengagement from the region. Gulf leaders are increasingly asking: if we can’t rely on the U.S. to contain Iran, what are our alternatives? Trump’s second term must work to rebuild trust with these states, balancing diplomatic outreach to Iran while reaffirming the U.S.’s commitment to Gulf security through military presence and arms sales.

Israel: The Watchdog with a Hair Trigger

Israel, however, faces a distinct challenge when it comes to Iran. Unlike the Gulf states, Israel’s approach to Iran’s nuclear program is fundamentally existential. Iran’s development of nuclear weapons would not just shift the regional balance of power—it would pose a direct and catastrophic threat to Israel’s security. The Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Netanyahu’s successor, is highly skeptical of any nuclear deal with Iran, viewing the 2015 JCPOA as a failed attempt to constrain Tehran. In the eyes of Israel, the agreement was a diplomatic mirage—granting Iran significant sanctions relief in exchange for promises of a "limited" nuclear program that Israel believes were never truly fulfilled.

For Israel, the U.S. is both an ally and a lifeline in its efforts to contain Iran. Yet, the current state of U.S.-Israeli relations is fraught with tension, especially regarding the Biden administration’s commitment to the 2025 talks. Israel’s leadership is increasingly uncomfortable with the idea of the U.S. reaching any agreement with Iran that could lead to further sanctions relief or weakened restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. From Israel’s perspective, a nuclear-capable Iran isn’t just a regional problem—it’s a direct threat to the survival of the Jewish state.

This has led to a sharpening divergence in policy between the U.S. and Israel. Israel, for example, has often taken unilateral military action in the past, notably cyberattacks and targeted assassinations of key Iranian figures, to curb Tehran's nuclear program. Netanyahu has consistently pushed for more aggressive tactics—anything short of military strikes, he argues, could lead to Israel’s annihilation.

Israel’s concerns in this round of talks are heightened by the fact that Trump 2.0 is now in office, a president whose Middle East strategy leans heavily toward reducing U.S. involvement in the region while simultaneously encouraging regional players to take more responsibility for their own security. This vision of a “New Middle East”—one in which the U.S. provides security guarantees but largely steps back—may not align with Israel’s deep-seated need for unwavering U.S. support. Trump’s team, laden with figures like Michael Anton and Tulsi Gabbard, is more isolationist in orientation than any U.S. administration in recent history. While this stance appeals to some of the Gulf’s more isolationist factions, it leaves Israel deeply uncomfortable, questioning whether the U.S. will be as reliable an ally as it has been in the past.

The U.S. Strategy: A Balancing Act of Deterrence and Diplomacy

As negotiations progress, the U.S. will need to strike a delicate balance in maintaining strong ties with both Israel and the Gulf states while continuing dialogue with Iran. The challenge lies in brinkmanship—the U.S. must understand that while it cannot afford to let Iran become too emboldened, it also cannot afford to alienate its regional partners to the point where they no longer trust Washington to protect their interests.

Recommendations for U.S. Strategy:

Regional Engagement Over Isolationism: The U.S. must reaffirm its commitment to regional security by engaging actively with Gulf and Israeli leaders. This means stepping up military and intelligence-sharing arrangements, as well as strengthening economic ties with the Gulf states and Israel.

Clear Communication with Israel: The U.S. must clearly articulate that any nuclear deal with Iran will prioritize Israel’s security, including more robust provisions against Iranian proxies and ballistic missile capabilities. Israel’s fears must be addressed directly—reaffirming the strategic alliance and ensuring that Israel has the tools it needs to defend itself, regardless of the diplomatic outcome.

Gulf Security Frameworks: The U.S. should foster regional security frameworks that involve not just the Gulf states but also Israel, ensuring that any nuclear deal with Iran is supplemented by an integrated defense system in which all regional players can participate. This may involve sharing military technologies, as well as strengthening deterrence against Iranian threats.

Tactical Diplomacy with Iran: The U.S. must be wary of Iran’s ability to play brinkmanship during negotiations, and must resist the temptation to “walk away” from talks. While strategic patience is necessary, tactical negotiations should focus on securing verifiable measures that prevent Iran from achieving nuclear breakout capability.

In short, the Gulf and Israel are not mere peripheral players—they are pivotal to shaping any lasting peace or stability in the region. The U.S. cannot afford to disregard their concerns or hopes for regional security in the pursuit of a deal with Iran. As tensions rise and brinkmanship continues to be the name of the game, the U.S. needs a more nuanced, cohesive, and sustained approach—one that acknowledges regional complexities and is sensitive to the realities of all the actors involved.

Turkey, China, and Russia: A Deep Dive into Their Reactions to the Iran Nuclear Talks

As the U.S. enters the third round of the 2025 nuclear negotiations with Iran, the intricate web of regional and global powers continues to influence both the direction and outcome of these critical talks. Beyond the U.S. and Iran, key players like Turkey, China, and Russia each have unique stakes in the success or failure of the negotiations, and their reactions are shaped by both their immediate interests in Iran and their broader geopolitical strategies. To understand the complexities of the 2025 talks, it's essential to explore how these countries are maneuvering behind the scenes and how their involvement could shift the dynamics of the nuclear deal.

Turkey: Walking a Tightrope Between Competing Interests

Turkey’s role in the ongoing Iran nuclear negotiations is shaped by its complex geopolitical positioning. On one hand, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s administration has long been a member of NATO, committed to a security relationship with the West. On the other hand, Turkey has been positioning itself as a regional power that increasingly seeks autonomy from Western influence, turning to countries like Russia and Iran as strategic partners. The result is a delicate balancing act where Turkey must navigate its ties to both the West and its regional rivals, and nowhere is this more evident than in its relationship with Iran.

Turkey shares many geopolitical and economic interests with Iran. Both countries are wary of Kurdish separatism and share concerns about Kurdish autonomy movements in Syria and Iraq. For Turkey, this shared interest in combating Kurdish militancy has been a major pillar of its relationship with Tehran. Beyond security, the two countries are also significant trading partners, particularly in the fields of energy and infrastructure. Turkey imports a substantial amount of oil and natural gas from Iran, and the two countries have cooperated on several large-scale infrastructure projects, including pipelines and trade routes.

However, Turkey is far from being an uncritical ally of Iran. Ankara views Iran’s growing regional influence, especially in Syria, with suspicion. Iran’s support for Shia militias and Kurdish groups that oppose Turkey’s interests, especially in Syria, has led to a degree of rivalry between the two nations. Turkey has been actively involved in the Syrian conflict, supporting opposition forces against Bashar al-Assad, who is an ally of Tehran. Therefore, Turkey’s support for any U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement will not come without conditions.

Turkey's priority in the negotiations is to maintain stability in the region while ensuring its security concerns are addressed. This includes keeping Iran in check in areas such as Syria and Iraq, where Turkey fears the further emboldening of Iranian-backed forces. Ankara’s interests in the negotiations will likely center on preventing Iran from gaining too much leverage in Syria, limiting Iranian missile technology, and ensuring that any nuclear deal doesn’t inadvertently lead to an expansion of Iran’s regional influence.

In addition, Turkey’s own energy security will play a significant role in how it approaches the talks. Despite Turkey’s increasing economic ties with the U.S. and Europe, energy from Iran remains a vital part of Turkey’s energy strategy. Turkey is already heavily reliant on Russian gas, and any move to curtail energy imports from Iran would add to Turkey’s already considerable vulnerability in the energy sphere. Ankara will likely seek to secure commitments on the continued flow of Iranian energy supplies as part of any deal, balancing its security concerns with its economic needs.

While Turkey’s response to the U.S.-Iran talks will be one of cautious support, it is also a reflection of Ankara’s broader desire to position itself as a regional power broker, capable of engaging both the West and the East without fully aligning with either side. Turkey is unlikely to openly oppose the talks or the eventual deal, but it will maintain a carefully calibrated approach that allows it to protect its own interests in the region.

China: Protecting Economic Interests and Challenging U.S. Dominance

China’s approach to the Iran nuclear talks is intricately tied to its broader ambitions of expanding its geopolitical footprint. As the world’s second-largest economy, China has both economic and strategic interests that are closely aligned with Iran, making it one of Tehran’s most important partners outside of the West. The relationship between Beijing and Tehran has evolved over the years, with China now being Iran’s largest trade partner, particularly in oil and energy exports.

China’s involvement in the nuclear talks is largely driven by its energy needs and economic interests. China’s growing appetite for oil and natural gas has made Iran a crucial supplier. Under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China has made massive investments in Iran, including in its energy sector, infrastructure, and telecommunications, which further solidify the mutual dependence between the two countries. As the U.S. seeks to reimpose sanctions on Iran and constrain its nuclear program, China has consistently pushed back, arguing that sanctions only hurt Iran’s civilian population and destabilize the region.

For Beijing, the Iran nuclear talks are also about countering U.S. influence in the region. China has long opposed U.S. hegemony in global affairs and sees its relationship with Iran as a way to not only secure access to energy but also to bolster its own standing as a counterbalance to U.S. dominance. In this context, Beijing has been an outspoken supporter of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and has consistently advocated for the continuation of a multilateral, diplomatic approach to resolving the nuclear issue, even when the U.S. withdrew from the deal in 2018. China has positioned itself as a defender of the multilateral order, while also benefiting economically from the removal of sanctions on Iran.

In 2025, China’s role in the negotiations will likely continue to be that of a diplomatic ally to Iran. Beijing will push for a return to the JCPOA framework and for the complete removal of U.S. sanctions. From China’s perspective, the longer Iran is subjected to Western sanctions, the more opportunities there are for Chinese businesses to enter Iran and take advantage of its untapped resources and markets. However, China is also pragmatic. While it will continue to support Iran’s interests, it will also be careful not to overextend itself in the negotiations. Beijing’s main goal is to ensure a stable relationship with Iran while simultaneously strengthening its broader regional influence through economic and diplomatic means.

China’s leverage in the talks comes from its economic ties with Iran, but it also seeks to use the negotiations as a tool to weaken the U.S. position in the Middle East. Beijing sees the nuclear talks as an opportunity to challenge Washington’s influence over global governance, using its support of Iran as a way to erode U.S. hegemony. This strategic alignment with Tehran, however, will also be tempered by China’s broader geopolitical goals in the region and its long-term competition with the U.S.

Russia: A Key Diplomatic Player with Dual Interests

Russia’s role in the 2025 U.S.-Iran nuclear talks is characterized by both cooperation and competition. Since the original JCPOA negotiations in 2015, Moscow has played a significant role as both a partner to Iran and a counterweight to U.S. influence in the region. The Russian government under President Vladimir Putin has long seen Iran as a crucial partner in the Middle East, especially in Syria, where both countries have supported the government of Bashar al-Assad against opposition forces. Iran’s regional ambitions, particularly in terms of its military presence in Syria, have been aligned with Russia’s goals of maintaining its foothold in the region.

While Russia is an enthusiastic supporter of the nuclear deal, it has its own set of strategic interests that guide its behavior in the talks. Moscow views any successful nuclear deal with Iran as a way to weaken U.S. sanctions and open the door to greater Russian economic involvement in the Iranian market. Like China, Russia seeks to take advantage of any opportunities that arise from the lifting of sanctions to bolster its energy and defense industries.

However, Russia’s support for Iran is not unconditional. While the two countries have overlapping interests in Syria, Moscow has repeatedly reminded Tehran of the limits to their partnership, particularly in areas where their interests diverge. In the nuclear talks, Russia will support Iran’s position on the removal of sanctions but will also work to ensure that its own strategic interests are not sidelined in favor of Tehran’s ambitions. For example, Russia is deeply invested in maintaining its influence over Syrian territory, and any U.S.-Iran nuclear deal that would lead to a shift in Syria’s political landscape could have direct implications for Russia’s regional strategy.

Russia will also be a vocal critic of any U.S. efforts to limit Iran’s missile development, which could undermine Russia’s arms sales to Tehran. Russian arms exports are a significant part of its economic relationship with Iran, and Moscow has historically defended Iran’s right to develop advanced missile systems as part of its own security strategy.

In the 2025 negotiations, Russia’s role will be one of diplomatic facilitator, balancing its dual interests of supporting Iran’s nuclear ambitions while ensuring that the deal serves Russia’s broader geopolitical and economic goals. Russia will likely work to prevent the U.S. from imposing new sanctions on Iran, while also advocating for a deal that opens up new markets for Russian businesses.

The Geopolitical Chessboard

As the U.S.-Iran nuclear talks continue, Turkey, China, and Russia are key players that will shape the negotiation process. Each country brings its own set of interests to the table, making the outcome of these talks more complicated than simply a U.S.-Iran bilateral issue. Turkey is focused on regional security and energy concerns, China is prioritizing economic growth and regional dominance, and Russia is balancing its role as both a supporter of Iran and a protector of its own regional interests.

While the U.S. remains at the forefront of these negotiations, it must consider the influence and calculations of these external powers, whose stakes are closely tied to the broader geopolitical landscape. As the U.S. moves forward, it will have to navigate these complexities with a careful eye on not just Iran but the shifting dynamics of the entire Middle East and beyond.

Iran’s Self-Assessment: A Calculated Approach to the Talks

As the 2025 U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations unfold, Iran’s evaluation of the talks is both methodical and multifaceted, shaped by a long-standing tradition of dealing with Western powers while keeping one eye firmly fixed on its broader geopolitical ambitions. While much of the global focus is on the nuclear negotiations themselves, Iran's self-assessment transcends the technical aspects of uranium enrichment or centrifuge restrictions. It’s a far more strategic calculation, assessing everything from economic sanctions relief to regional leverage and long-term positioning against not only the United States but also key regional players such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.

Iran has historically treated the negotiation table as a place to maneuver not just on the nuclear issue but to advance its larger interests. With the U.S. back at the table under President Donald Trump (2.0), Iran’s evaluation is informed by its experience with the 2015 JCPOA talks, its growing influence in the Middle East, and a deep sense of national pride and sovereignty. Tehran approaches this round of talks with a combination of pragmatic optimism and strategic brinkmanship—but it will not be hurried into any agreement that doesn’t benefit its long-term interests. And this negotiation is less about engaging in straightforward diplomacy and more about taking advantage of the power vacuum left by the U.S. retreat from global leadership.

Strategic Goals: Sanctions Relief as Leverage for Regional Dominance

The primary objective for Iran in these talks remains sanctions relief, a critical element that has crippled its economy since the U.S. walked away from the JCPOA in 2018. The re-imposition of sanctions has resulted in inflation, a currency crisis, and increasing domestic unrest. Tehran’s economy has weathered these challenges but has struggled in the face of declining oil exports, a lack of foreign investment, and strained relations with key trading partners.

Iran’s approach to the 2025 talks is clear: any nuclear deal must come with a guarantee of substantial sanctions relief. However, Tehran is not just looking for a quick fix to its economic woes—it is leveraging the talks as an opportunity to ensure the long-term viability of its geopolitical and economic ambitions. Sanctions relief is an essential means to regain access to international markets, particularly for its energy exports, and to reintegrate Iran into the global financial system. This would also give Iran the flexibility to pursue its broader objectives in regional security, defense, and influence across the Middle East.

However, Iran’s strategic calculus goes beyond economic recovery. Tehran also uses the nuclear talks as a means to cement its regional leadership. The lifting of sanctions would enable Iran to expand its influence in the region, particularly in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon, where Tehran has long exercised significant sway through its allies and proxy groups. Iran views its nuclear program as not just a defensive necessity, but as a vital bargaining chip in its broader effort to reshape the Middle Eastern order. The Iranian leadership understands that their influence in the region could be significantly enhanced if they gain the economic freedom to project power more effectively.

Abbas Araghchi: The Mastermind of Diplomacy

Iran’s negotiating team is led by Abbas Araghchi, a seasoned diplomat who has played a central role in nearly every stage of the nuclear negotiations since 2006. Araghchi is no stranger to balancing the fine line between diplomacy and strategic intransigence. He has been a prominent figure in the 2015 JCPOA negotiations and has returned to the table with a sense of purpose and the experience needed to navigate the political complexities of the current environment.

Araghchi’s leadership of the Iranian team is marked by a deep understanding of the power dynamics in international negotiations. He is known for his tactical brilliance, frequently using brinkmanship and calculated concessions to maintain Iran’s position at the table. Unlike the U.S. negotiators, who have at times displayed a lack of coherent strategy or disjointed messaging, Araghchi’s team is organized, prepared, and deeply committed to ensuring that any agreement aligns with Iran’s broader national interests. The current Iranian delegation is cohesive, representing a blend of hardline and moderate factions within the government, which allows Araghchi to project a united front while remaining flexible on technical details in order to maintain leverage.

Iran’s nuclear strategy is not one of immediate confrontation, but rather one of maintaining enough ambiguity to ensure it remains a critical player in the negotiations. For instance, while the U.S. demands specific nuclear-related limitations—such as limiting Iran’s ability to enrich uranium or produce ballistic missiles—Iran has pushed back, emphasizing its sovereign rights and security concerns. Araghchi and his team have repeatedly emphasized that Iran will not abandon its nuclear ambitions but will negotiate the specific parameters of its activities in exchange for sanctions relief.

A Regional Perspective: Leveraging the Nuclear Talks for Greater Regional Power

As Tehran assesses the nuclear talks, it does not view them in a vacuum. The Iranian government is acutely aware that regional security is intrinsically tied to the outcome of these discussions. For Iran, the nuclear issue is not just a matter of peaceful energy production or non-proliferation—it is a key component of its ability to influence events across the Middle East. Tehran has cultivated a network of allies and proxy groups—from Hezbollah in Lebanon to the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) in Iraq and the Houthi rebels in Yemen—and views these relationships as an integral part of its regional security apparatus.

Iran’s self-assessment in the 2025 talks also takes into account the regional pressure it faces, particularly from Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the UAE. These nations have a vested interest in limiting Iran’s regional power, both in terms of its nuclear capabilities and its military influence. Israel, in particular, has consistently expressed its concern that any nuclear deal would allow Iran to rebuild its nuclear capabilities, potentially turning it into a regional hegemon. This is a point of tension Tehran is careful to exploit. In fact, Iran has repeatedly used the nuclear issue as a leveraging tool to remind its regional adversaries that any security deal in the region will require Iran’s active participation and consent.

Tehran also keeps a close eye on the Arab Gulf states, such as the UAE and Qatar, who have traditionally viewed Iran’s growing influence with suspicion. However, Iran’s shifting alliances, particularly with the UAE—where economic cooperation has taken a larger role—indicates that Tehran is ready to shift regional alignments to its advantage. These shifting dynamics in the Gulf provide Iran with an opportunity to forge new alliances, which it will likely use to increase its leverage during the nuclear talks. The lifting of sanctions would allow Iran to directly engage in regional security arrangements, particularly those focused on security in the Strait of Hormuz and broader shipping lanes.

Tactical and Strategic Leverage: Playing the Long Game

Iran’s diplomatic strategy, particularly under Araghchi’s leadership, hinges on a key distinction between tactical negotiation and strategic diplomacy. Whereas the U.S. tends to treat tactical negotiations as a sign of weakness, Iran views them as part of a broader strategic vision. For instance, the Iranian willingness to re-enter the talks at various stages—even after moments of heightened tension—is a calculated move designed to ensure that Iran remains at the center of any future nuclear and regional security framework.

The notion of brinkmanship plays an integral role in Iran’s strategy. Whether it’s in Uranium enrichment levels or missile development or even Iran’s support for groups like Hezbollah, Iran has consistently used its military capabilities and nuclear advancement to push for favorable terms. The threat of resuming nuclear escalation is a key bargaining chip, but Iran does so carefully, calculating the cost-benefit of any major move in this area.

Moreover, Iran’s regional power projection is not just military; it is economic as well. Iran is using the talks to position itself as a key player in any future Middle Eastern security arrangements. By signaling that it can help stabilize the region—whether in Iraq, Syria, or Yemen—Iran is laying the groundwork to extract significant concessions from the West on broader regional issues. The eventual lifting of sanctions would offer the economic leverage needed to advance this broader geopolitical agenda, as Araghchi has repeatedly asserted.

Iran’s Calculated Patience: Trust, but Verify

Iran’s evaluation of the nuclear talks continues to be grounded in a sense of strategic patience. Tehran understands that it must appear committed to negotiations in order to maintain international credibility, yet it will not hastily agree to terms that would curtail its sovereignty or its ability to pursue nuclear technology. For the Iranian leadership, the long game involves securing both economic relief and regional power, with the nuclear issue serving as both a tool for negotiation and an anchor to assert its interests.

This evaluation is informed by lessons from the past—most notably the 2015 JCPOA, where Iran engaged in diplomatic engagement, but not at the cost of its broader goals. Tehran is not blind to the Western desire for restrictions on its nuclear program, but it is equally committed to ensuring that it remains an indispensable player in both the Middle Eastern and international security landscapes. The key for Iran remains balancing this negotiation leverage with the careful maintenance of its national dignity and regional influence.

Iran’s assessment of the talks is marked by a pragmatic realism—it understands its vulnerabilities but is confident in its position. The next steps will depend heavily on how much the U.S. and its allies are willing to offer in exchange for compliance, and Iran’s nuclear brinkmanship will undoubtedly continue to play a key role in how it evaluates these talks moving forward.

The Role of Khamenei and the Sepah

While much of the attention in these negotiations is focused on the technical aspects of Iran's nuclear program and the diplomatic dance between U.S. and Iranian negotiators, one cannot overlook the profound influence of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC, or Sepah Pasdaran) on how Iran is evaluating the talks. These two figures—Khamenei's ideological leadership and the Sepah’s military and strategic dominance—form the bedrock of Iran’s long-term foreign policy and its nuclear calculus. As much as the negotiation table is a site for diplomacy, it is also a stage for maintaining and consolidating Iran's internal political coherence and regional influence.

Khamenei's Strategic Influence: More Than Just the Nuclear Issue

The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, holds the ultimate say on Iran's nuclear trajectory. Despite the technical discussions occurring in Muscat, Vienna, or Geneva, Khamenei's ideological stance and political priorities fundamentally shape the direction of Iran’s participation in the negotiations. Since coming to power in 1989, Khamenei has emphasized a "resistance economy" and a foreign policy rooted in anti-imperialism, particularly toward the West, especially the U.S. For Khamenei, the nuclear issue is not merely about achieving a peaceful energy agenda—it is intrinsically tied to Iran’s sovereignty, national pride, and deterrence capacity against what is perceived as a hostile international order.

Iran’s negotiations with the West have always been conducted with the assumption that any deal must preserve Iran’s nuclear program as a symbol of national pride and independence. This is not just about the technical enrichment levels or the construction of new reactors—this is about cementing Iran’s status as a regional power and standing firm against any perceived threats to its sovereignty. Iran’s nuclear program serves as an anchor of deterrence: it sends a powerful signal to both regional and global powers that Iran will not be bullied into submission or compromise its position in the Middle East.

Khamenei’s role in the negotiations is indirect but crucial. While Iranian diplomats, including Abbas Araghchi, handle the daily tasks of negotiation, Khamenei’s public statements and political maneuvering provide the framework within which these diplomats must operate. Iran’s "red lines"—such as the non-negotiability of its missile program, the right to enrich uranium, and the ability to conduct research on advanced nuclear technology—are Khamenei’s strategic guidelines. His influence is especially visible in moments of crisis when the nuclear talks face breakdowns or when diplomatic crises emerge, as he often publicly reaffirms Iran’s right to resist Western demands.

This political dynamic is further complicated by Khamenei’s long-standing mistrust of U.S. intentions. Having lived through the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the U.S. Embassy hostage crisis, and the subsequent decades of sanctions and military pressure, Khamenei is deeply suspicious of Western promises. For him, the U.S. is not just an adversary—it is the embodiment of a system that seeks to undermine Iranian sovereignty. Hence, any concession made during the talks is heavily conditioned by Khamenei’s perception of U.S. trustworthiness and Western commitment. His stance on the nuclear program reflects his broader view of Iran’s role as a regional power, whose independence and resistance are non-negotiable.

The Role of the Sepah: Iran’s Strategic Muscle and Proxy Network

Beyond Khamenei’s ideological leadership, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)—or the Sepah Pasdaran—plays a critical role in shaping Iran’s broader foreign policy and the internal dynamics of its negotiation strategy. The Sepah is not just a military force; it is a multi-faceted institution involved in everything from intelligence gathering, domestic security, and economic activities, to operating a network of proxy groups and militias across the Middle East. Its extensive regional reach and military capabilities make it a key player in Iran’s evaluation of the talks.

Unlike regular military forces, the IRGC is uniquely tasked with advancing the Islamic Revolution’s principles and spreading Iranian influence. For Iran, the Sepah’s involvement in regional conflicts—from Iraq and Syria to Yemen and Lebanon—has made it a powerful arm of Iran’s foreign policy. The IRGC’s leadership, particularly its Qods Force, which handles foreign operations, is deeply embedded in the strategic calculus of the Islamic Republic’s approach to regional stability and its broader nuclear diplomacy. Iran’s proxy wars are considered not just military engagements but also political tools that allow Tehran to project power, secure alliances, and counterbalance the influence of adversaries, particularly the U.S. and its regional allies.

In the context of the nuclear negotiations, the Sepah’s interests are critical for understanding Iran’s negotiating position. While Khamenei shapes the political narrative and provides ideological direction, the IRGC ensures that Iran maintains its ability to leverage regional alliances and use its military and proxy networks as negotiating chips. The IRGC has shown little appetite for backing down on Iran’s regional ambitions, particularly as they relate to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States. In fact, the Sepah’s regional influence—whether through direct military engagement or through groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis—creates a strategic buffer zone that shields Iran from external pressure.

Iran’s evaluation of the nuclear talks, therefore, is inseparable from its larger regional strategy. The Sepah’s ongoing military activities in the region are designed to enhance Iran’s leverage in diplomatic negotiations. From a tactical perspective, the IRGC’s presence in Syria serves as a bargaining chip, allowing Iran to exert pressure on Israel while pursuing its nuclear agenda. Additionally, Iran’s support for Shiite militias in Iraq, its engagement with Hamas in Gaza, and its influence in Lebanon via Hezbollah allow Iran to complicate any efforts by the West or its regional allies to isolate or contain Tehran’s influence.

The Intersection of Khamenei’s Ideology and Sepah’s Regional Power

The integration of Khamenei’s ideological leadership with the Sepah’s military strategy creates a situation where Iran views its nuclear program and regional dominance as interconnected. Iran’s leadership understands that to secure sanctions relief and a favorable nuclear deal, it must demonstrate that its nuclear program is not merely a bargaining chip but a symbol of its resilience and sovereignty. However, the Sepah’s role ensures that Iran’s regional posture—its military influence, proxy network, and ballistic missile capabilities—remains firmly on the table during negotiations.

Iran evaluates the nuclear talks through this dual lens: nuclear diplomacy as a means of preserving sovereignty and regional military strength. Khamenei may want to project an image of moderation in diplomatic circles, but the Sepah’s actions on the ground—whether in Syria or Yemen—send a very different message, one of uncompromising strength and geopolitical ambition.

Furthermore, as these negotiations unfold, the Sepah’s regional leverage is not just about military muscle—it’s about internal legitimacy as well. The IRGC’s grip on the Iranian economy and its political influence in Tehran ensures that any agreement must be acceptable to the regime’s hardline factions, which are deeply connected to the Sepah’s military-industrial complex. A deal that compromises Iran’s nuclear program or undermines its regional alliances risks internal unrest and loss of legitimacy for the government, particularly in the face of domestic economic hardships.

Iran’s Multi-Dimensional Strategy

In the end, Iran’s self-assessment of the talks hinges on the broader balance of power—how the nuclear issue intersects with its regional ambitions and internal political calculations. Khamenei’s ideological convictions and the Sepah’s military influence ensure that Iran approaches the negotiations from a position of strength. It will not agree to any deal that undermines its sovereignty or regional power. Rather, it will use the talks to extract the maximum benefit—sanctions relief, nuclear rights, and regional security arrangements—without conceding the core principles of its foreign policy.

While the U.S. negotiators may focus on nuclear constraints, Iran views these talks as much more: a means of securing its place at the center of the Middle Eastern order, consolidating its regional alliances, and ensuring that it remains an undeniable actor on the global stage. This is why, despite the tensions, Iran’s leadership continues to engage—cautiously, strategically, and with an eye on both the immediate gains and the longer-term geopolitical landscape.

The Muted Response of Iran Hawks: A Shift in Political Context and Strategic Calculus

After all the fanfare and rhetorical bluster that accompanied the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, you might expect that the 2025 negotiations would ignite a similar uproar from the Iran hawks in the United States. After all, these same voices had forcefully rejected the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) under Obama, labeling it a “gift to Iran” that would empower Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and destabilize the Middle East. Yet, when the Trump team re-engaged with Iran diplomatically, the reaction from the hawkish camp was notably muted. Why? Has the Trump administration’s approach to the nuclear issue truly deviated from that of Obama? Why aren’t the same old critics making as much noise? To understand this apparent contradiction, we need to dig into the evolving political landscape, shifting priorities, and strategic recalculations at play—both in the U.S. and within the hawkish faction itself.

A Rewind to 2015: The Obama Era and the Storm of Criticism

Let’s first remind ourselves of the fervor with which Iran hawks condemned Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal. For them, the JCPOA wasn’t just a diplomatic misstep; it was a dangerous capitulation to a regime that had long been a thorn in the side of U.S. interests in the Middle East.

At the time, the reasons for such intense backlash were abundant:

Empowering a Regime with Regional Hegemonic Ambitions: Iran’s backing of militant groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and various Shia militias across the Middle East made the JCPOA a non-starter for many critics. They feared that any concessions made to Iran would translate into further destabilization in places like Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen—not to mention the potential for Iran to continue its ballistic missile program. To them, the deal was a green light for more Iranian interference, a diplomatic failure that didn’t address Tehran’s malign influence in the region.

Obama’s Diplomatic Approach and the Perception of Weakness: Obama’s willingness to engage Iran directly and pursue a diplomatic solution was seen by many hawks as a misreading of Iran’s true nature. From their perspective, this approach signaled American weakness and emboldened Iran’s most hardline factions, particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). They were convinced that appeasing Iran would only feed its appetite for more influence in the region, ultimately at the expense of U.S. allies, particularly Israel and the Gulf States.

The Fear of a Nuclear-Ready Iran: At the heart of the opposition was the belief that the JCPOA was only postponing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, not eliminating them. The sunset clauses in the deal, which eventually lifted some of the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program after a set number of years, were seen as inherently flawed. To hawks, it wasn’t a matter of if Iran would eventually develop a nuclear weapon, but when.

Political Identity and Partisanship: The Republican Party—already at odds with Obama on virtually every front—used the Iran deal as yet another example of the President’s failed foreign policy. With voices like Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator John McCain, and Representative Mike Pompeo leading the charge, the Iran deal became one of the most prominent flashpoints in the larger political battle between Obama’s multilateral diplomacy and the hawkish, unilateral approach favored by the Republican opposition.

Trump's Re-engagement: A Starkly Different Approach, but Familiar Tactics

Fast forward to 2025. Donald Trump, despite his “America First” mantra and his maximum pressure campaign against Tehran, has taken a diplomatic turn in the nuclear negotiations. The withdrawal from the JCPOA and the subsequent re-imposition of severe sanctions created a situation in which, paradoxically, the U.S. found itself cornered diplomatically. Iran’s position was strengthened—partly because of the sanctions relief it received prior to 2018, and partly due to China’s growing influence in the region.

Trump’s approach has not been one of ideological purity or tactical brilliance. Instead, it’s been marked by a combination of strategic necessity and political calculation—a re-engagement with Tehran that echoes Obama’s methods but with a larger emphasis on a broader geopolitical framework. The Trump administration, having imposed crippling sanctions, now seeks to reset the diplomatic table through negotiations, while positioning itself as the toughest negotiator on the planet.

But despite the rhetoric, the strategy remains very much in line with Obama’s in the sense that the U.S. is engaging Iran diplomatically once again, with the aim of reaching a new agreement that would forestall a nuclear crisis. This is where the similarities to the JCPOA become difficult to ignore.

Why the Muted Reaction?

If the Trump administration’s approach is so similar to Obama’s, why is the reaction from Iran hawks so much quieter? A number of factors have contributed to the muted response this time around.

Changing Political Dynamics Within the Republican Party

In 2015, Iran hawks were riding a wave of partisan opposition to the Obama administration. The Iran deal was a focal point in the larger Republican narrative of Obama as a weak, ineffective leader on the world stage. Fast forward to 2025, and Trump is not just any Republican President; he is the leader of the party itself. While his approach may share some of the same principles as Obama’s (i.e., diplomatic engagement with Tehran), Trump’s base has largely endorsed his methods—regardless of whether those methods resemble the tactics of his predecessor.

While Republican hawks still criticize the JCPOA, they are far less willing to oppose Trump outright, especially as his stance on Iran aligns with their broader foreign policy preferences, such as opposing nuclear proliferation and deterring Iranian regional influence. Even if they have reservations about the specifics of Trump’s negotiation tactics, Republican hawks are less likely to speak out due to their loyalty to the President’s leadership and broader Middle East strategy.

The Shift Toward Pragmatism

While the hawkish voices of 2015 were driven by a hardline ideology, the political climate in 2025 is one of realpolitik and pragmatism. Middle Eastern geopolitics have shifted, and many of the traditional hawks—especially those tied to Israel, the Gulf States, and Egypt—are less adamantly opposed to diplomatic engagement with Iran. They have seen the costs of isolationism and recognize that the U.S. might need to find a balance between pressure and engagement in order to keep Iran’s nuclear program at bay.

This pragmatic shift has led to more reluctance in openly condemning Trump’s efforts, even if they are still deeply skeptical about the ultimate outcome of such talks.

Trump’s Unconventional Leadership Style

Trump’s unpredictability and populist appeal have played a key role in dulling the criticisms of hawks. Unlike Obama, whose diplomatic maneuvers were often framed in a liberal internationalist mold, Trump’s nationalist and transactional approach to foreign policy has created an atmosphere of ambiguity—one in which hawks are less inclined to reap political points by opposing the negotiations. The polarization of U.S. politics under Trump has also meant that those who would traditionally oppose an Iran deal feel more compelled to withhold judgment in an era defined by chaos and controversy.

The Absence of the Traditional "Obama Effect"

Finally, Trump’s dealings with Iran have become less about ideological opposition and more about outmaneuvering Tehran in a regional context. The Obama Effect, where hawks felt the need to defend U.S. honor and security against Obama’s perceived appeasement, is absent in 2025. Instead, the hawks are focusing on Trump’s broader foreign policy agenda, which centers around countering China, Russia, and terrorism—all of which influence the calculations regarding Iran.

In this context, Trump’s critics, including many hawks, are distracted by larger concerns about domestic issues, the Middle East’s shifting alliances, and the impact of new players like China, Russia, and Turkey—all of whom play roles in the Iran negotiations. These concerns are pushing hawks into a more cautious stance rather than encouraging them to reject Trump’s diplomacy outright.

A Complex Web of Strategic Calculations

The muted response of the Iran hawks to the Trump administration’s diplomatic engagement with Iran in 2025 is a product of shifting political dynamics, the ideological evolution of hawkish factions, and the changing priorities of U.S. foreign policy. While there are undeniable similarities between Trump’s tactics and those of Obama, the political landscape has shifted significantly, and the hawks now have different calculations at play. The atmosphere of pragmatism, combined with Trump’s unpredictability and the competing challenges of geopolitics, has led many critics to adopt a more ambivalent stance toward the ongoing nuclear talks. This cautious approach, though far from ideal, is yet another chapter in the complex, ever-evolving saga of U.S.-Iran relations—one that will continue to play out against a backdrop of competing interests and shifting alliances across the globe.

The Role of the MAGA Movement and the Unexpected Alliances: How Iran Hawks Have Been Stymied by Isolationists and Pro-Iran Voices

The landscape of U.S. foreign policy toward Iran has dramatically shifted as the Trump administration’s foreign policy has been further shaped by the MAGA movement. This shift has made it more complicated than ever for traditional Iran hawks to maintain a clear, unified stance on Iran's nuclear ambitions and its broader geopolitical role. Whereas the Obama-era diplomacy was firmly rooted in the belief that the U.S. could engage Iran through multilateral negotiations, the current political environment, shaped by Trump 2.0 and his MAGA populist base, has created new fractures that influence how conservatives approach Iran. In this context, it’s fascinating to observe how Iranian hardliners and U.S. isolationists—often political and ideological opposites—have found common cause in the debate over U.S.-Iran relations.

While the Iran hawks were once a dominant voice in American conservatism, particularly after the 2009 Green Revolution and during the Obama administration's JCPOA negotiations, the shift in political climate under Trump has led to the emergence of new conservative voices that are either more sympathetic to Iran or indifferent to the stakes of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. The result? Iranian hardliners have exploited ideological shifts within the right-wing to position themselves as part of the resistance against U.S. imperialism, Israeli influence, and globalism, while traditional hawks are sidelined.

The MAGA Movement: A New Breed of Isolationism

Central to the shift in U.S. foreign policy is the rise of the MAGA movement, which has carried with it a form of isolationism and anti-interventionism that directly clashes with traditional Republican stances on Iran. The MAGA movement advocates for a radical retrenchment in U.S. foreign affairs, particularly in the Middle East, where decades of U.S. military interventions have created what many on the right see as an ongoing quagmire. The popular refrain, “America First,” has redefined what it means for the U.S. to be a global power. The focus is now on domestic issues, trade wars, and a rejection of international agreements—all in the name of rebuilding America’s strength at home.

For the MAGA base, U.S. military presence in the Middle East is seen as wasteful and counterproductive. The perception that Iran—a long-time foe of the U.S.—could somehow be used as a counterbalance to China and Russia in the broader geopolitical order has taken root. The core belief here is simple: America should prioritize its own interests first, with minimal interference in foreign conflicts, even if that means diplomatic engagement with adversaries like Iran.

This populist, America-first rhetoric has not only impacted the broader Republican narrative but has also led to significant changes in U.S.-Iran diplomacy. Under this framework, the MAGA movement argues that Iran, far from being an existential threat, is simply another country looking to assert its sovereignty, much as the U.S. does in the Western Hemisphere. The 2025 negotiations with Iran, far from representing a hardline stance on nonproliferation, are now viewed as a way to secure the U.S. and its allies’ interests without endless military interventions.

However, the irony is that Trump’s MAGA wing, through its anti-interventionist rhetoric, has inadvertently created a platform for voices sympathetic to Iran, or even those advocating for pro-Iran positions, to find a home within the broader Republican Party. These voices are mostly a coalition of populist conservatives, libertarians, and those deeply critical of U.S. foreign interventions in the Middle East, leading to a fragmented, sometimes contradictory approach to the Iran question.

Pro-Iran Voices on the Right: A Strange New Alliance

The integration of pro-Iran voices into U.S. right-wing discourse was once unthinkable. Iran was always the boogeyman, cast as the enemy of everything the U.S. stood for in the Middle East—democracy, freedom, and of course, its strong relationship with Israel. Yet, over the past decade, a fascinating shift has occurred. Some factions on the right have come to see Iran not as the enemy of freedom, but as a legitimate adversary of U.S. global dominance. This group views the Iranian regime as a necessary counterbalance to the U.S.’s military-industrial complex and a resistance force to the dominance of Israel in the region.

A critical development in this dynamic is the rise of anti-Zionism within parts of the conservative movement, driven in part by the intersection of anti-establishment rhetoric and anti-globalism. Some of these right-wing populists see Iran as an essential ally in opposing U.S. military power and its support for Israeli policies in Palestine. Iran’s narrative of resistance to Israeli and U.S. influence, including its support for Palestinian groups like Hamas, has led some conservatives to align with Iran in ways that were once unimaginable.

Even more troubling for traditional Iran hawks is the growth of the pro-Iran faction within the U.S. right. Many populist conservatives see Iran as an important ally in a broader global struggle—one that pits nations resisting Western imperialism against those who are allied with globalist elites. This strange alignment with Iran, a regime that is undeniably authoritarian, theocratic, and increasingly aggressive in its regional policies, has confounded traditional conservatives who believe in democracy promotion and deterrence as the cornerstones of U.S. foreign policy.

The Role of Pro-Hamas Sentiment in Shaping Right-Wing Views on Iran

The growing acceptance of pro-Hamas sentiment on parts of the right has added fuel to the fire. Many populist figures within the MAGA movement have embraced the rhetoric of resistance, which Iran has long championed as part of its ideological platform. Iran has successfully co-opted the Palestinian cause into its larger geopolitical narrative, positioning itself as the protector of Palestinian interests in the face of Israeli occupation. The language of anti-imperialism and sovereignty used by Iranian propagandists resonates with a populist right increasingly skeptical of American military engagements, especially when those engagements are viewed as defending Israel and its interests at the expense of Palestinian self-determination.

In a bizarre twist, this ideological alignment has found its way into the mainstream right-wing in the U.S., with figures once staunchly opposed to Iran now contorting themselves to defend Tehran’s role in Middle East geopolitics. The anti-interventionist faction has succeeded in reframing Iran as a moral actor—even as it continues its aggressive regional policies and nuclear program.

The Influence of Iranian Propaganda: How Conservative Voices Were Swayed

Iran’s ability to shape right-wing discourse cannot be understated. The Iranian regime has made calculated efforts to exploit the ideological divide within American conservatism. It has understood that the best way to shift U.S. policy is to appeal to common enemies—namely, the U.S. military-industrial complex, Israel, and the globalist elites. Iran has been strategic in aligning itself with anti-Zionist movements and positioning itself as the defender of oppressed peoples—a narrative that, in an era of global populism, resonates deeply with parts of the right-wing base.

The Struggle of Iran Hawks: A Battle on Multiple Fronts

For the traditional Iran hawks, this shift in the U.S. political landscape is a bitter pill to swallow. They have long advocated for hardline policies toward Iran, favoring maximum pressure and military deterrence to prevent Tehran from becoming a nuclear power and continuing its regional aggression. However, as populist and isolationist forces within the Republican Party have grown stronger, Iran hawks find themselves losing the ideological battle.

Not only are the pro-Iran populists re-shaping the conversation on Iran, but they also pose a growing challenge to the Republican Party's historical approach to foreign policy. Iran hawks are increasingly sidelined, as isolationists, anti-interventionists, and those sympathetic to Iran's anti-Western rhetoric gain ground. This political fragmentation has made it more difficult for hardliners to maintain a unified stance on Iran, especially as the MAGA movement continues to dominate the Republican narrative.

In this increasingly unpredictable political environment, the fate of U.S.-Iran relations will depend not only on Iran’s diplomatic moves but also on how the U.S. navigates its internal ideological battles. As the 2025 negotiations unfold, it’s clear that the old alliances are being tested, and traditional Iran hawks must contend with the new political forces that have emerged within the U.S. right-wing—forces that will likely continue to challenge conventional wisdom and reshape U.S. policy on Iran for the foreseeable future.

The Trillion-Dollar Mirage: Iran’s Transactional Gambit and the MAGA Temptation

In a move as audacious as it is calculated, Iran has rolled out what amounts to a trillion-dollar bait—an economic mirage dangling before a transactional administration hungry for a quick “deal” headline. The Bloomberg report detailing Iran’s so-called trillion-dollar economic opportunity is not a genuine invitation to partnership. It’s a feint—a slick PR maneuver engineered to seduce precisely those elements in the Trump administration most vulnerable to the siren song of immediate gratification.

On paper, the pitch is every dealmaker’s fantasy: unfreezing assets, reintegration into global energy markets, and a post-sanctions bonanza that could theoretically pump trillions into an economic pipeline reaching from Tehran to Texas. But scratch beneath the surface, and the familiar Iranian playbook emerges: exploit Western desperation, dangle economic potential, and buy time for nuclear and regional escalations.

Iran understands that MAGA-world thrives on optics and immediate payoffs. A large tranche of the America First movement is less ideologically hawkish and more transactionally nationalist. If a deal “makes sense for America,” especially if it benefits American energy, infrastructure, or export sectors, it’s given more leeway than a traditional neoconservative policy. Tehran is gambling that the MAGA movement’s skepticism of endless wars can be leveraged into a form of isolationist complacency—or worse, complicity.

In reality, however, the supposed “deal” is a trap designed to split the America First coalition. It isolates the ideological Iran hawks who understand the regime’s long-term threat from the more libertarian and populist elements susceptible to the language of prosperity and anti-globalist disengagement. This is not about Iran reforming its behavior—it’s about Iran buying time and space to reassert regional dominance while seducing Washington with Gulf-like windfalls.

The problem is compounded by the chaotic nature of the Trump 2.0 foreign policy team. Bereft of seasoned Middle East specialists and populated by ideological opportunists with conflicting loyalties—some with deeply problematic ties to Qatar, Russia, and other hostile actors—this administration lacks a unified strategic vision. The Iran offer, far from being a breakthrough, is a stress test on MAGA coherence, one Tehran is keenly aware of.

There is also the dangerous illusion that this offer signals Iranian pragmatism. In reality, it’s a recycling of the same manipulative tactics Iran deployed in the JCPOA era—only this time, tailored to appeal to nationalist businessmen and foreign policy amateurs instead of liberal internationalists. The wrapping has changed, but the contents remain toxic.

If Trump’s team accepts this narrative uncritically, they risk doing what Obama’s did in 2015: mistaking a tactical Iranian move for a strategic opening. This would embolden the IRGC, empower proxies across the region, and legitimize Tehran’s brinkmanship as a form of normalized diplomacy. It would signal to adversaries everywhere that transactionalism can override deterrence.

The appropriate response? Don’t treat this as an economic proposal—treat it as an information operation. Iran is not offering peace; it is marketing dependency. The administration must reinforce deterrence, rally allies who understand the Iranian game, and shut down the illusion that Tehran can be brought to heel through dollars. The Iranian regime only bargains under pressure. If MAGA wants to prove it’s learned from Obama’s errors, it should spike the “deal” and double down on containment.

How the Situation Stands

The Muscat talks were not just a diplomatic impasse; they were a testament to the enduring failure of American foreign policy in handling Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Tehran has mastered the art of prolonging negotiations while methodically expanding its nuclear capabilities and regional influence. The U.S., weighed down by internal discord and strategic incoherence, walked away from the talks having conceded more than it gained. The broader lesson from Muscat is clear: diplomacy without a unified vision is little more than ritualized defeat. Until Washington recalibrates its approach—embracing regional alliances, enforcing red lines with credibility, and recognizing the strategic realities of Iran’s long-game diplomacy—future negotiations will remain stuck in the cycle of temporary agreements, fading leverage, and misplaced optimism. In the great geopolitical chess match, Iran continues to advance, while America remains trapped in a misguided pursuit of illusory breakthroughs.