Regional Obstacles and Incentives for an Iran-US Agreement
Verbal cues from Iran and the United States for the commencement of negotiations are on the rise. Mr. Pezeshkian’s administration from the outset implicitly introduced its strategy regarding sanctions as direct negotiation with the US and in recent days it has made this strategy public.
Verbal cues from Iran and the United States for the commencement of negotiations are on the rise. Mr. Pezeshkian’s administration, from the outset, implicitly introduced its strategy regarding sanctions as "direct negotiation with the US," and in recent days, it has made this strategy public. The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, on the day of Mab'ath (Prophet Muhammad's designation as prophet), also aligned the Islamic system with the government's strategy using the concepts of "speaking, bargaining, and caution." If "heroic flexibility" is considered the key concept in the Leader's statements for the initiation of JCPOA negotiations, in the new era, "bargaining and caution" is his key concept. On the other hand, the Trump administration has also deemed negotiation with Iran on the nuclear issue "preferable" to adopting a war approach. However, existing signs from the US administration indicate that the preferred US negotiation strategy with Iran will be "coercive diplomacy" as much as possible. The Leader's reminder about "caution" also refers to the Americans' tendency towards "maximum for themselves, minimum for others." The outcome of potential negotiations between Iran and the US will be determined by the "security, economic, political, and social leverages of both sides." However, what is significant in this context are the intervening variables, some of which accelerate or encourage agreement, while others act as a brake, preventing agreement. Previously, we outlined the facilitating factors and brakes on agreement at the national level for Iran and the US. In this analytical note, we address the facilitating factors and obstacles to agreement at the regional level.
Obstacles to Agreement at the Regional Level:
Conflict over the Issue of Palestine: The Palestinian issue is the central core of structural tensions in the Middle East, the roots of which must be traced back to the second half of the 19th century and the processes leading to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Over the past twenty years, the Palestinian issue has become even more complex and ambiguous. The formation and coherence of the Axis of Resistance, the normalization of Arab countries' relations with Israel, and the conflicts after October 7, 2023, have made the Palestinian issue more complex and uncertain than ever. Many foreign policy analysts believe that ninety percent of the roots of Iran-US disputes are also related to the Palestinian issue and Israeli occupation. Based on this, as long as the Palestinian issue has tension-generating and spontaneous dynamics, it will severely and negatively impact any potential agreement between Iran and the US.
US Regional Interventions: The exogenous regional order is a process that began in the Middle East with World War I and continues to this day. The intervention of extra-regional powers in the Middle East and their engineering of coalitions and political and security alliances in the region have led to a contradictory and fragile order in the region, which constantly cultivates its own opposition forces. In the current situation, the US is the most important foreign power that has established and strengthens its desired order through Israel and its allies in the region. In contrast to this order are countries like Iran, which oppose the exogenous regional order and believe that the regional order should be endogenous and emerge from the process of neighborhood policy with the participation of regional powers and the positive involvement of extra-regional powers. Therefore, the exogenous regional order in the Middle East, centered on the US and Israel, and resistance against this order by Iran and the Axis of Resistance, leads to tension-generating processes in the region and challenges any potential agreement between Iran and the US.
Polarization: Regional polarization is a highly profitable strategy for Israel and the US, pursued through security dualization in the region and creating antagonism towards Iran. What benefits does polarization have for Israel? The more polarity increases in the region between the Axis of Resistance and the front inclined towards the Western bloc in the region, the level of animosity towards Israel decreases; Israel's crimes in the region are justified; the process of normalization between Israel and the Arabs is facilitated; the Palestinian issue is marginalized; US intervention in the region gains legitimacy, and Iran becomes the main issue in the Middle East. Therefore, Israel and the US are constantly trying to intensify regional polarization between the Hebrew-Arab-Western front and the Axis of Resistance, with Iran at its center. The process of polarization is inherently tension-generating and poses a fundamental challenge to any potential agreement between Iran and the US.
Normalization of Arab-Israeli Relations: The Abraham Accords have a commercial appearance but a deeply political and security essence, aimed at regional polarization, marginalizing the Palestinian issue, security and political encirclement of Iran, and strengthening a new model of US intervention in the region (influence instead of presence). Trump considers the Abraham Accords the golden page of US regional policy in his first term, and advancing the Abraham Accords will be part of the main headlines of Trump's Middle East policy in his second term. He believes that the Palestinian crisis after October 7 is due to the Abraham Accords being suspended during the Biden era. The Trump administration will pursue the continuation of normalization between Arabs and Israel from 2025 onwards, and undoubtedly, this accord will strengthen structural conflicts in the Middle East, especially between Iran and the US.
Facilitating Variables for Agreement at the Regional Level
Stability-Seeking: Stability and instability in the region are a function of the interests and actions of regional actors. Currently, the interests of many regional and extra-regional powers are defined by the establishment of peace and stability in the Middle East. The Persian Gulf has reached relative stability after the March 10th agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and all countries around the Persian Gulf, including Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman, seek to maintain stability in the Persian Gulf. The United States, the European Union, China, and Russia also currently prefer stability and peace in the Persian Gulf to instability. Following the fall of Bashar al-Assad (and the shift in the balance of power in the Middle East), regional and extra-regional powers are also pursuing stability in this region to solidify the new balance of power. Turkey, the new Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, Iraq, and even Israel prefer stability in the region. Although the fall of Bashar al-Assad and the siege of Hezbollah in Lebanon have shifted the balance of power against the Axis of Resistance, the Islamic Republic of Iran, with different motivations, in the current ambiguous situation, views new instability in the Levant region as against its interests and currently seeks stability in the Levant region. Therefore, the stability-seeking of influential actors in the Middle East is one of the trends that could contribute to a potential agreement between Iran and the United States.
New US Intervention Model: After the costly experience of nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan, and especially during the Syrian war, the US government has chosen the "offshore balancing" model instead of close-range balancing as a grand strategy in the Middle East to:
Firstly, reduce its foreign policy costs in the Middle East,
Secondly, concentrate its forces to compete with emerging powers in the international system like China,
Thirdly, establish a new international order with a new model of offshore balancing and delegating responsibility to regional allies.
The offshore balancing model has now reached consensus between both the Democratic and Republican parties. The Leadership Strategic Document of 2025 also emphasizes that the set of regional policies and US aid to allies should be in line with strengthening the US offshore balancing model. Advancing the offshore balancing model can strengthen a potential US agreement with Iran.
Energy Security: Energy security, including maintaining production and security of energy corridors, is one of the main US policies in the region. Threats to energy security endanger the international political economy and the international trade network. Therefore, US security leverages are immediately activated in the face of any threat to energy security. The 2024 US-led military coalition attack on Yemen is an example of US sensitivity to energy security. Since increased tension with Iran could jeopardize energy security in the region, containing Iran's negative and security-undermining actions through a temporary or permanent agreement could be an incentive for the US to be encouraged to reach an agreement with Iran.
Stabilizing the New Balance of Power: Drawing on neorealist theory, the balance of power in the region is always in a state of flux. When a power vacuum occurs, efforts to fill the power vacuum begin, and the balance of power is disrupted, and a new balance emerges. Actors who are satisfied with the new balance try to stabilize the new situation. Currently, in the region, after the series of wars following October 7th, the balance of power in the region has shifted in favor of Turkey, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, and these three countries, backed by US aid, are trying to maintain the new balance. The security actions of Iran and other members of the Axis of Resistance are the biggest threat to the new balance in the region. Therefore, a potential agreement between Iran and the US is a variable that strengthens the stabilization of the new balance in the region, and from this perspective, it will be an incentive for the US to reach an agreement with Iran.
Seyed Mohammad Hosseini, Senior Expert at the Center for Political and International Studies
(The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the IPIS)