Anyone trying to understand the current negotiations between the United States and Iran can be forgiven for feeling confused. One day Donald Trump threatens devastating military action. The next, he suggests a deal may be close. Iran insists it will never surrender its core demands. American officials speak of progress. Deadlines are announced and then extended. Red lines appear to shift. Ultimatums are issued and then softened. Headlines declare a breakthrough, only to be followed days later by renewed threats, fresh demands and warnings of further conflict.

The reality is that very few people truly know what is happening behind closed doors. There are countless factors at play: American domestic politics, global energy markets, international pressure, military considerations, regional alliances and the personal calculations of leaders on all sides.

Yet amid all the noise, there are some important realities that remain remarkably consistent. To understand where these negotiations are heading, we must stop focusing on the daily headlines and start focusing on two things that matter far more: how the Iranian regime approaches negotiations and the objectives that both sides are ultimately trying to achieve.

Understanding Iranian Negotiation Tactics

To understand where the current negotiations may be heading, it is first necessary to understand how the Iranian regime approaches negotiations.

One of the most insightful analyses of this subject was written more than fifteen years ago by Harold Rhode, a former adviser on the Islamic world to the US Department of Defense. Remarkably, much of what he described then appears strikingly familiar today. Rhode argues that the Iranian regime views negotiations differently to how Westerners view them. Negotiations can be used to reduce pressure, gain time, improve leverage, test an opponent’s resolve, and wait for circumstances to become more favorable. The very fact that the US is seeking negotiations is seen by the Iranians as a sign of weakness and a lack of confidence in achieving its objectives militarily. In their eyes, it is therefore the US, not Iran, that must make concessions.

Western negotiators frequently view compromise as a sign of goodwill and a step towards building trust. Iranian negotiators interpret concessions very differently. A concession made before an agreement is reached is seen as........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)