Every few years, a familiar story reappears in Western media: negotiations are underway with Iran, diplomacy is back on the table, and a deal may be within reach. Officials speak of “progress.” Diplomats shuttle between capitals. Commentators debate enrichment levels and sanctions schedules.
But beneath this theater lies a far simpler reality.
A genuine agreement between the United States and Iran is extraordinarily unlikely—not because diplomats lack skill or the technical issues are unsolvable, but because too many powerful actors benefit from the conflict continuing.
If a real deal were ever to happen, it would require something very basic: the restoration of Iranian economic sovereignty. That means lifting sanctions, returning frozen Iranian assets, and allowing the country to participate normally in the global economy.
Without those steps, any agreement would be meaningless to Tehran.
And that is precisely why a deal is so difficult to achieve. The geopolitical ecosystem surrounding Iran has evolved in ways that make its continued isolation extremely profitable—and strategically convenient—for several key players.
Israel’s Strategic Imperative
For Israel, Iran represents the only regional state with the population, industrial capacity, and ideological hostility to eventually challenge Israeli military dominance.
From Israel’s perspective, the problem is not simply nuclear enrichment or missile development. The issue is Iran itself.
A large, technologically capable Iran integrated into global markets would gradually accumulate wealth, diplomatic influence, and military capability. Even without nuclear weapons, such a country could eventually alter the regional balance of power.
For decades, Israeli strategy has focused on ensuring that no rival state in the region becomes powerful enough to threaten its security. Iraq once fit that description. Syria once did. Today, Iran occupies that role.
Add to this mix, real economic opportunities to divert oil and gas exports via pipeline to Israel versus through the Straits of Hormuz… billions of dollars of transit fees, capital investment, etc., and the ‘opening’ or normalization with Iran becomes impossible not simply from a security vantage point, but from an economic consideration.
Under this strategic logic, the optimal outcome is not merely a constrained Iran but a permanently weakened one—isolated, sanctioned, and economically contained.
This does not necessarily mean Israeli leaders seek war for its own sake. But it does mean that any agreement that restores Iran’s economic strength carries long-term risks for Israel’s strategic position.
As a result, Israeli influence in Washington consistently pushes U.S. policy toward pressure rather than normalization. The US simply cannot make a deal with the current regime – it would not satisfy Israel.
The Quiet Interests of the Gulf States
The Gulf monarchies publicly frame their rivalry with Iran as a matter of security and ideology. But there is also a quieter economic dimension that receives far less attention.
Iran is one of the most resource-rich countries in the world. It possesses enormous reserves of oil and gas, a large, educated population, and a geographic position connecting Central Asia, the Caucasus, South Asia, and the Middle East.
If sanctions were lifted and Iran re-entered global markets, it could rapidly become one of the most dynamic economies in the region.
Such a development would reshape the Gulf.
Energy markets would face new competition. Aviation hubs in Dubai and Doha would face rivals in Tehran and other Iranian cities. Tourism, finance, logistics, and trade networks could shift.
For decades, Gulf economies have operated within a regional system in which Iran—one of the largest potential competitors—has been heavily constrained.
This has been enormously advantageous.
An open Iranian economy could fundamentally change that balance.
While Gulf leaders may prefer stability over war, the status quo of a contained Iran is economically comfortable. Integration has unpredictable consequences. Iran can – and will – decimate their newly established industries.
From an aviation standpoint, Iran has high-altitude airports that require much less fuel for takeoff and landing. Iran is over 1000 Km closer to Europe and East Asia. It’s a natural, not a fake (politically established) hub. Iran has a vast, highly educated workforce capable of operating and maintaining aircraft. Add to this mix, incredible (and ancient) monuments and tourist attractions, and there would be distinct disadvantages to utilizing these Persian Gulf states as transportation hubs.
From an industrial standpoint, Iran is not only a huge industrial giant – with a population of almost 100 million – but also possesses vast natural resources, beyond its 2nd-largest oil and gas reserves globally. Copper, zinc, Iran, Uranium … you name it… Iran has it in spades. Then add two more components: its nodal geographic placement, which would enable distribution to landlocked Central Asian nations (all the stans), as a crucial east-west connectivity node; and then add to this, (again) an indigenous, vast and highly educated workforce capable of developing and maintaining industrial facilities. And suddenly, investments in Iran become compelling and significantly ‘superior’ to anything the other states on the Persian Gulf can offer.
Then add to this mix Iran’s ability to take in (and export) shipments from Chah Bahar port outside the Persian Gulf, and there is absolutely no way these states in the Persian Gulf can compete. They (and their European masters) have shrewdly resisted every effort to normalize and integrate Iran into the global economy. They have been the hidden hand escalating a false pretext of Iran’s nuclear ambitions for their own gains.
Strangely, these states prefer that the current regime stay in place – but remain sanctioned and contained.
The Problem of Trust in Washington
Then add this: even if Israel and the Gulf states were not factors, there would still be a central obstacle: U.S. credibility.
Diplomacy requires trust—or at least the expectation that agreements will endure long enough to matter.
From Iran’s perspective, recent history has demonstrated the opposite.
In 2015, Tehran signed a detailed agreement with the United States and several world powers limiting its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. After years of negotiations and intense international scrutiny, the deal was implemented.
Three years later, Washington withdrew.
Regardless of the political debates inside the United States about that decision, the message to Iran was unmistakable: American commitments may not survive changes in administration.
Twice recently, while the U.S. was negotiating with Iran, it decided to bomb Iran while sitting around the negotiating table. The US (along with Israel) has destroyed a whole ‘layer’ of leadership in Iran … including the new Supreme Leader’s father, mother, wife, daughter, and other family members’ deaths. There is simply no good faith on the part of the U.S., and there is a recent history of incapacity to honor agreements (such as a series of Minsk Agreements with Russia on Ukraine).
Then there is a fundamental dilemma. Iran cannot dismantle major components of its nuclear infrastructure or strategic leverage in exchange for promises that could disappear after the next election.
At the same time, the U.S. political system makes it nearly impossible for any president to offer iron-clad guarantees that future administrations will honor a deal. This structural mismatch means that even well-intentioned negotiations face massive credibility gaps that may be impossible to bridge with the current regime in Tehran.
Iran’s Regional Strategy
There is also the question of Iran’s own strategic doctrine.
Over the past four decades, Iran has built a network of allied groups and partners across the Middle East. These relationships provide Tehran with strategic depth and deterrence.
From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, these alliances allow Iran to project influence far beyond its borders while complicating any direct military confrontation with more powerful adversaries.
Critics in Washington and Israel describe these networks as destabilizing proxy forces.
Iranian leaders describe them as essential defense mechanisms in a hostile region.
Whatever the interpretation, one reality is clear: these alliances are central to Iran’s security strategy.
If Tehran were to abandon these relationships as part of a diplomatic bargain, it would lose leverage that cannot easily be rebuilt. Allies abandoned at one moment of negotiation may not be available again when circumstances change.
For the current regime in Iran, this risk is unacceptable. There are some in the West (notably the Europeans and their Arab partners) who quietly welcome the pressure Iran exerts on Israel via these proxies and see Iran’s actions to counter-balance Israel’s regional ambitions and behavior.
The Theater of Negotiations
Taken together, these dynamics create a peculiar diplomatic landscape.
Negotiations continue. Talks open and close. Diplomats meet in neutral capitals. Each round is framed as a possible breakthrough.
Yet the structural incentives surrounding the conflict remain largely unchanged.
Israel seeks a permanently weakened Iran. Gulf states benefit from Iran’s constrained economic role. The United States struggles with credibility and domestic political divisions. Iran refuses to abandon the strategic tools it believes ensure its survival.
Under these conditions, negotiations often resemble a kind of geopolitical theater—an elaborate performance in which each side participates but few truly expect a lasting resolution.
Diplomacy becomes simply a means of managing tensions rather than resolving them. There is every incentive to perpetuate this situation and NOT resolve it.
The Logic of Perpetual Confrontation
The result is a strange equilibrium.
Sanctions weaken Iran but do not collapse it. Iran resists pressure but does not fully integrate into the global economy. Periodic crises erupt and then subside. Limited military confrontations occur without escalating into full war. Strangely, the nuclear issue provides a useful perpetual pretext for continuous confrontation without resolution.
Each side tests boundaries while avoiding catastrophic outcomes.
From a distance, the system looks unstable. Yet it has endured for decades.
This does not mean a major conflict is impossible. History is full of situations where prolonged tensions suddenly erupted into war.
But it does suggest that the current pattern—pressure, resistance, negotiation, and stalemate—may persist far longer than many observers expect.
This is a Conflict Without Resolution
The deeper issue is that the U.S.–Iran confrontation is not simply about nuclear centrifuges or sanctions lists.
It is about the structure of power in the Middle East. It involves Russia and China. They, too, would not want a transformative deal that would place Iran’s crucial (and vitally important) resources in the Anglosphere.
Is Iran a permanent outsider to the regional order, contained and constrained? Or is it eventually integrated as a major political and economic force?
Until that question is resolved, every negotiation will confront the same underlying contradictions.
Diplomats may adjust enrichment caps. Sanctions may be temporarily lifted or reinstated. Agreements may be signed and later abandoned.
Thus, if this regime remains in place, the strategic conflict will remain. Trump cannot sign an agreement with the current regime because, if he does (and here comes the kicker), he will have failed in every dimension; every objective he stated for the conflict he started.
An agreement itself will confirm that the regime has not collapsed; in fact, it has succeeded, rewarded its hardliners, and thus will become more extreme. Iran’s nuclear programs will remain (trading enriched ‘dust’ for Iran’s frozen assets does not spell an end to the programs). An agreement means Iran will become more potent and further expand its ballistic missile programs. An agreement will reward Iran’s discovery of a new way to fight back using the straits to conduct economic warfare.
Ironically, years of economic warfare against Iran are being reversed with Iran’s economic warfare against the world by the closure of the straits. Years of false pretext to sanction and contain Iran for the benefit of these states around the Persian Gulf (and their European masters) are now being reversed by the de facto containment of these states by the closure of the straits. In essence, Iran can demand tariffs for the safe passage of its global exports and thus prosper by the prosperity it gained at others’ expense.
It’s a complete and utter abortion.
This is a total reversal of years of strategic planning. For 47 years, there has been a careful balancing of relations with Iran: on the one hand, US allies (Europe and Gulf states) wanted a sanctioned and contained Iran for their economic gains; on the other hand, Israel has wanted the destruction of Iran. And the US has walked a careful line between these two demands, always stopping short of war for decades. But now, if this regime collapses, the Europeans and Gulf states will be compromised. Iran will eat their lunch. If the regime stays, Israel will not achieve its goals. Iran will be emboldened and hardened. There is no win here for Trump with its allies.
Thus, the prospect of a durable and transformative agreement will always remain remote. Not impossible. It will really take something dramatic for him to pull off an incredible transformational agreement – one that somehow includes regime change in Iran. It is extraordinarily unlikely.
Thus, war will continue – either hot or cold. My prediction is that Trump will grab his ball and walk away from the playground – and pretend he won the game. Nothing good will emerge. Don’t hold your breath. Everyone – including (especially) Iranians will be screwed by this – Americans, Europeans, Israelis, Arabs, etc. Only winners: Russia and China. And Trump will be eaten alive domestically.
Unless one thing happens: total war!! Trump, after realizing the circumstances, understanding he can’t make a deal, may find that total regime collapse is his best option. And elect to go all out and fight. There are signs that he may have already elected to do this!!
This would be catastrophic. A tragedy.
Leave a Reply