Iran’s strategy is not an agreement – it is buying time for the purpose of continuing deception and building prohibited capabilities, the consolidation of the regime of terror in Tehran, the suppression of the population, and the destabilization of the situation in the Gulf and the Middle East in pursuit of hegemony.
Time after time, Washington appears to be falling into Iran’s negotiation trap.
A ceasefire is meaningful only if Iran’s actions match its commitments. Yet under the cover of the ceasefire, Tehran has used the time to rebuild capabilities, strengthen its proxies, and prepare for the next confrontation, while Washington continues to offer Iran additional diplomatic opportunities.
A similar pattern occurred in 2015 during the Obama administration, when the effort to reach a nuclear agreement with Tehran and the desire to avoid confrontation came at the expense of addressing other serious threats, including Iran’s ballistic missile program and Hezbollah’s global financial and criminal networks exposed through Project Cassandra.
What the West fails to understand is that this is not a business negotiation or a normal dialogue between states. It is a negotiation with a cunning and deceitful adversary, one that uses deception, manipulation, and every available tool to advance its objectives.
Iran is not driven only by strategic interests, but by a radical ideological and religious vision that places its goals above economic benefits or material interests. Washington often mistakes Iran’s sophisticated chess game for rational behavior: Tehran uses diplomacy and deception to advance ideological goals that differ fundamentally from those of the West.
Negotiation illusion
The Middle East is once again approaching a dangerous boiling point. Despite two major rounds of confrontation between Israel and Iran, the mission remains unfinished. Rather than using periods of de-escalation to move toward stability, Tehran has continued to advance its capabilities, strengthen its proxies, and pursue its regional ambitions.
At this moment, the West must confront an uncomfortable truth: it has repeatedly returned to the same strategic assumption, that agreements, gestures, and temporary ceasefires will inevitably lead to stability. History, however, shows that this assumption can be dangerously misleading.
The fight against terrorism and aggressive regimes cannot be managed through a policy in which economic interests, political convenience, or the desire to avoid confrontation come before human lives and long-term security. The central question regarding Iran is not simply whether negotiations are possible. The real question is how Tehran uses negotiations once they begin.
While American officials continue to signal openness to dialogue with Tehran, Iran has demonstrated that it is unwilling to approach negotiations from a position of genuine compromise. Reports indicate that US President Donald Trump has expressed willingness to meet with Iran’s leadership, including discussions involving Mojtaba Khamenei, while Tehran has refused direct engagement.
The message is clear: Washington is seeking a diplomatic opening, while Tehran continues to maintain distance and leverage.
Washington has even signaled openness to restoring diplomatic relations with Iran, including the possibility of reopening an embassy in Tehran. Tehran rejected the idea, claiming that an American embassy could serve as a tool for intelligence gathering and political destabilization.
Iran understands that time is its greatest strategic asset. The question is not whether an agreement can be reached, but how Tehran exploits the time it gains through negotiations and ceasefires.
Indeed, Iranian officials themselves have openly portrayed the current diplomatic process as an opportunity to consolidate their achievements, restore capabilities, and prepare for the next phase of confrontation. Washington should take them at their word.
According to reports, Iranian officials have warned that any failure to meet their expectations could lead to renewed escalation, while the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has reportedly threatened further action regarding the Strait of Hormuz unless its demands are met.
The message from Tehran is unmistakable: negotiations are not replacing pressure tactics; they are being conducted alongside them.
The events surrounding the funeral ceremonies for Ali Khamenei provided another revealing moment. During a period when the United States was focused on major symbolic events, including the World Cup, Trump’s birthday, and the 250th anniversary of the United States, Iran held extended mourning ceremonies in which threats against Trump reportedly appeared. Mojtaba Khamenei also vowed that revenge for his father’s death would come.
Even when America attempts to lower tensions, Iran does not necessarily respond with restraint.
Deterrence matters
The United States must also ask itself a difficult question: if missiles had been fired toward Manhattan, Paris, or London for years, would Western governments have responded with the same calls for containment, patience, and renewed negotiations? Would they accept a reality in which their populations remained under constant threat while the international community demanded restraint from the victim?
The standard applied toward Israel cannot be fundamentally different from the standard applied toward Western nations themselves.
Iran’s continued actions demonstrate the limits of a policy based on calibrated responses alone. The question is not only the scale of each response, but the message it sends to Tehran. When aggression carries limited consequences, an adversary may interpret restraint as a hesitation rather than deterrence. A cycle of provocation, limited response, and renewed aggression cannot create lasting security.
Israel learned this lesson painfully in Gaza. Years of tolerating incremental threats eventually led to catastrophic consequences. The same logic cannot be applied to Iran, a state actor with greater resources, regional ambitions, missile capabilities, and a willingness to continue confrontation even after suffering military setbacks.
Lebanown represents a strategic opportunity to reshape the regional balance of power. A stronger Lebanese state, progress toward regional normalization, and the expansion of the Abraham Accords would send a powerful message to Iran and its proxies across the region.
The ultimate objective must be genuine security – not the illusion of security.
A regime that seeks dialogue while maintaining a policy of threats and escalation cannot be treated as a normal negotiating partner. Diplomacy without deterrence becomes exploitation; an agreement may be a tool, but not the ultimate objective at the expense of security. Washington may be pursuing a broader strategy whose full objectives are not yet visible.
Ultimately, diplomacy must be measured by results on the ground. When an adversary repeatedly declares its intention to destroy you, the responsible choice is to believe it.
Iran’s aggression and belligerence, and its violations of the Memorandum of Understanding, even though it was clearly to its advantage, prove the mistaken and weak position of the US, which granted Iran substantial advantages both in the nuclear sphere and in its military rehabilitation capabilities.
The US has not yet fully internalized Iran’s capabilities for deception, the messianic and dangerous nature of the Ayatollah regime, and its extremism against any compromise.
As with Hitler and the Emperor of Japan in 1945, unconditional surrender is required, enabling the democratic and enlightened forces in Iran to rehabilitate the country and transform it into a peace-seeking state.■
Danny Ayalon is a former Israeli deputy foreign minister, Knesset member, and ambassador to the US.
Moran Alaluf is an analyst on Middle East affairs and counterterrorism, and a specialist on Iran and Hezbollah.