ALBAWABA — A recent analysis suggests that the intensifying protests in Iran have exposed a fundamental flaw in U.S. foreign policy: the enduring belief that Tehran could be treated as a negotiable, reform-oriented player within the global arena.
The report, published by Foreign Policy, claims that successive U.S. administrations based their strategies on the premise that Iran's leadership preferred engagement with the outside world to ongoing repression domestically. This perspective informed policies from diplomatic containment in the 1990s to nuclear negotiations in subsequent years, and it continued to shape approaches under various political administrations in Washington.
Rather than signaling a willingness to reform, negotiations and dialogue were used by Tehran as tools to reinforce its legitimacy and prolong its grip on power, without offering meaningful concessions or altering core policies.
Analysts cited in the report argue that U.S. policymakers overestimated the regime’s pragmatism and underestimated its reliance on domestic repression and regional influence as interconnected pillars of survival.
Information Gaps and Policy Blind Spots
The analysis also points to shortcomings in how information about Iran reaches U.S. decision-makers. It notes that reliance on advisers from Iranian diaspora communities has often produced incomplete or biased perspectives, while dissenting analyses that portray the regime as fundamentally resistant to reform have received less attention.
As a result, U.S. policy toward Iran became increasingly constrained by internal political and diplomatic narratives, limiting its ability to adapt to developments on the ground inside the country.
Opportunity for Reassessment
Given the ongoing protests in Iran, the report posits that Washington has a chance to reevaluate its comprehension of the Iranian political landscape. It contends that internal repression and Iran's regional aspirations are inextricably linked, and that Tehran's diplomatic overtures should be interpreted primarily as tactics to gain leverage, rather than indicators of substantive transformation.
A Strategic Misreading
Analysts conclude that the deficiencies in U.S. policy resulted not from flawed implementation or poor timing, but from a consistent misinterpretation of Iran's political character. This prevailing perspective, they argue, has caused Washington to become increasingly detached from the realities that govern Iran's internal affairs.
