The current trajectory of U.S.–Iran relations epitomizes the perennial tension between idealistic ambitions and realist constraints that has long characterized American foreign policy in the Middle East.
As we witness the Trump administration’s renewed “maximum pressure” campaign alongside simultaneous diplomatic overtures, we are reminded once again that geopolitical realities often trump ideological preferences.
The apparent contradiction in President Donald Trump’s approach—combining harsh sanctions with direct negotiations—reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how effective coercive diplomacy actually works.
The recent U.S.–Iran negotiations initiated in April 2025, following Trump’s letter to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, occurred alongside the restoration of maximum pressure policies. This dual track reveals the persistent American belief that economic punishment can somehow create the conditions for meaningful diplomatic breakthrough.
History suggests otherwise. The original JCPOA succeeded precisely because it offered Iran tangible relief from sanctions in exchange for nuclear constraints. By maintaining maximum pressure while demanding nuclear concessions, the current approach creates perverse incentives that make Iranian compliance less likely, not more.
The American bombing of Iranian nuclear sites in June 2025 represents a dangerous escalation that fundamentally undermines the prospects for negotiated settlement. Military action against nuclear facilities, regardless of tactical justifications, signals that Washington views Iran primarily through a security lens rather than as a potential diplomatic partner.
This militaristic approach reflects broader American tendencies to substitute force for statecraft. Rather than creating leverage for negotiations, military strikes typically harden positions on both sides and make face-saving compromises more difficult to achieve.
The Israel–Iran dimension adds another layer of complexity that American policymakers consistently underestimate. Trump’s announcement of a ceasefire between Israel and Iran suggests recognition that regional conflicts cannot be separated from bilateral U.S.–Iran relations. Yet the pattern of American policy continues to prioritize alliance solidarity over strategic coherence.
A genuinely realist approach would recognize that Israeli and American interests regarding Iran, while overlapping, are not identical. Israel’s existential concerns about Iranian regional influence may conflict with American interests in regional stability and nuclear non-proliferation. Managing this tension requires acknowledging that unwavering support for all Israeli positions may not serve broader American strategic objectives.
Iran’s nuclear program remains the central issue, but American discourse continues to frame it in absolutist terms that make negotiated solutions nearly impossible. The demand for complete nuclear rollback, combined with maintenance of sanctions, ignores the basic reality that Iran developed its nuclear capabilities precisely as leverage against such pressure.
A more realistic approach would acknowledge that some Iranian nuclear capability may be inevitable and focus instead on establishing robust monitoring and verification mechanisms that provide adequate early warning of any weapons program. The goal should be managing the nuclear issue, not eliminating it entirely.
The effectiveness of sanctions as a policy tool has been oversold in American strategic thinking. While economic pressure can create costs for target states, it rarely produces the kind of fundamental policy reversals that American policymakers expect. Iran has demonstrated remarkable resilience in adapting to sanctions, developing alternative economic relationships and domestic capabilities.
Moreover, the broader international community shows increasing fatigue with American secondary sanctions that constrain their own economic opportunities. European, Chinese, and Russian resistance to American Iran policy reflects not just disagreement about Iran specifically, but broader concerns about American economic coercion as a tool of foreign policy.
A genuinely realist approach to Iran would begin with a clear-eyed assessment of American interests and capabilities. The United States has legitimate concerns about Iranian regional behavior and nuclear activities, but also has limited ability to fundamentally reshape Iranian domestic and foreign policies through external pressure alone.
This suggests several policy adjustments:
- Differentiated engagement: Rather than treating all Iranian activities as equally threatening, American policy should distinguish between core security concerns (nuclear weapons development, direct threats to American personnel) and broader regional competition that may be manageable through diplomatic means.
- Conditional reciprocity: Instead of demanding unilateral Iranian concessions, Washington should develop packages of mutual concessions that address both countries’ core concerns. This might involve nuclear constraints in exchange for sanctions relief, or regional behavioral changes in exchange for diplomatic recognition.
- Alliance management: American policy should acknowledge that complete alignment with Israeli preferences may conflict with broader regional stability. This requires honest conversations with allies about trade-offs and priorities.
- Realistic timelines: Fundamental changes in U.S.–Iran relations will require years, not months, to achieve. American political cycles create pressure for quick results that work against the patient diplomacy required for durable agreements.
The current moment presents both opportunities and risks for U.S.–Iran relations. The willingness of both sides to engage in direct talks, despite ongoing tensions, suggests that diplomatic pathways remain open. Nevertheless, the simultaneous escalation of military and economic pressure creates crosscurrents that could easily overwhelm diplomatic progress.
Success will require Washington to abandon the fantasy that pressure alone can produce capitulation and embrace the more complex reality that sustainable agreements require mutual accommodation. This may be politically difficult in the American context, but it represents the only realistic path toward managing one of the most consequential relationships in contemporary international politics.
The alternative—continued cycles of escalation and crisis management—serves neither American interests nor regional stability. A mature foreign policy would recognize these limitations and adjust accordingly.
Read the full article here
