At the moment, the negotiations appear to be moving in only one direction. Washington seems eager to reach an agreement, while Tehran is testing every possible boundary, and every round of fire brings control back to Iran. It decides peace and War in the region.
Rather than negotiating from a position of compromise, Iran is stretching the process itself, convinced that time works in its favor and that the United States has a limited tolerance for prolonged confrontation.
This dynamic is not entirely new. It bears a striking resemblance to an earlier strategic failure: the belief that peace could be engineered with the Palestinians by creating artificial symmetry between Israel and organizations fundamentally committed to Israel's destruction.
Many Israelis convinced themselves that territorial concessions would moderate their adversaries. Instead, those concessions created the conditions for Iranian-backed terrorist infrastructure to emerge in territory Israel itself had relinquished.
The common assumption behind both episodes is similar. In each case, a powerful democracy hesitates to use its overwhelming strength. Whether because of moral restraint, economic priorities, war fatigue, or simple strategic misjudgment, it signals reluctance rather than resolve. Its adversary interprets that restraint not as goodwill or strength but as weakness, and responds by expanding its ambitions - despite the irrational nature of those actions.
The comparison is not perfect. Israel surrendered land that was directly tied to its own security and historical identity. The United States is primarily pursuing economic and geopolitical interests. It is reasonable for great powers to weigh economic considerations in foreign policy.
The problem begins when policymakers assume that every rival is motivated by those same considerations.
That appears to be one of the central weaknesses of Vice President J.D. Vance's approach. His strategic framework seems to assume that economic incentives ultimately outweigh ideological commitments. If prosperity can be offered, hostility can eventually be moderated.
That assumption misunderstands the nature of the Islamic Republic.
Iran's leadership has repeatedly demonstrated that revolutionary ideology, religious legitimacy, and regional hegemony take precedence over economic welfare. Sanctions relief and investment may influence tactical decisions, but they have never altered the regime's strategic objectives.
President Donald Trump appears to recognize the Iranian threat somewhat more clearly than Vance does. Yet he too ultimately hopes that the conflict can end through a successful economic arrangement. The difference is one of emphasis. Vance tends to see both the problem and its solution primarily through an economic lens. Figures such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other national security hawks view the conflict differently. In their assessment, the confrontation begins with ideology and religion before it reaches economics, and therefore cannot simply be negotiated away through financial incentives.
From Tehran's perspective, the current negotiations already represent a success. They provide valuable time, help stabilize the regime internally, open the possibility of economic relief, and reduce immediate military pressure. In return, Iran offers promises that it no longer seeks nuclear weapons, promises Western governments appear willing to accept despite decades of deception and concealment.
The regime gains breathing room.
The West gains comforting rhetoric.
Neither changes the underlying reality.
As always, Iran lies to the world.
And, perhaps more dangerously, the world continues to lie to itself.
