Nournews: Relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States over more than four decades have consistently been marked by tension, complexity, and intermittent shifts. While Washington’s negotiating approaches have appeared to change depending on circumstances and administrations, in a broader view they have followed a relatively fixed pattern. This pattern has centered on attempts to impose demands on Iran through various tools and tactics.
Within this framework, what has been described as the core of the disagreements relates to a persistent US effort to dictate its preferences to Iran. This approach has continued across different periods, including the recent talks, and has acted as one of the main obstacles to reaching an agreement.
One of the most significant elements of this pattern has been reliance on pressure as a primary tool. Since the Islamic Revolution, the United States has consistently used economic sanctions to weaken Iran. These sanctions intensified at different stages—from political crises to the nuclear dispute—and reached their peak during Donald Trump’s presidency under the “maximum pressure” policy. The goal of this strategy was to reduce Iran’s economic capacity and compel it to accept a broader set of demands.
Alongside economic pressure, military threats have also been used as a complementary lever. Although often expressed indirectly, these threats have played an important role in shaping the psychological atmosphere and influencing negotiation dynamics. In this context, following the failure of the Islamabad talks, Trump’s claim that the United States would begin a process of blocking the Strait of Hormuz and restricting ship traffic can be evaluated within the same framework. He stated that the US Navy had been assigned to monitor maritime routes and even detain vessels that had paid tolls to Iran.
This move, which carries a reactive character, is typically regarded in military doctrine as a precursor to broader operations. However, in this particular case, it can also be interpreted as an indication of the United States’ inability to achieve its objectives through direct military options. In other words, raising the issue of a Hormuz blockade may reflect less an expression of operational strength and more a sign of strategic deadlock in previous approaches to controlling the region.
Another characteristic of the US negotiation pattern has been the attempt to link multiple issues together. While Iran has consistently emphasized separating files—especially keeping the nuclear issue distinct from other matters—the United States has sought to include topics such as missile programs, regional influence, and human rights within a comprehensive package. This approach has effectively broadened the scope of negotiations and made reaching an agreement more complex.
In recent years, the issue of security in the Strait of Hormuz and freedom of navigation has also been added to this set of topics. Although this matter does not inherently fall within the nuclear negotiation framework, it has been raised as part of broader security concerns and used as a basis for increasing political and military pressure.
At the same time, the United States has consistently attempted to strengthen its negotiating position by building international consensus. Aligning European countries and utilizing institutions such as the United Nations Security Council have been among the tools used in this effort. This consensus-building has not only increased pressure on Iran but has also provided a degree of international legitimacy to US actions.
A strong focus on technical details and verification mechanisms has been another important aspect of this approach. In nuclear negotiations, the United States has paid special attention to technical limitations, extensive monitoring, and access measures beyond standard frameworks. This sensitivity reflects efforts to establish a precise, multilayered control system capable of closely monitoring Iran’s nuclear activities.
Overall, the US negotiation model has combined economic pressure, military threats, international consensus-building, expansion of negotiation topics, and detailed technical oversight. Together, these elements have served a broader strategy aimed at imposing demands on Iran.
Recent developments—including Trump’s statements regarding the Strait of Hormuz—suggest that this pattern continues, but also faces serious limitations and challenges. When announced measures appear more reactive than proactive, they may indicate difficulty in achieving objectives through earlier strategies.
Based on this perspective, the future of relations and negotiations between the two countries largely depends on revising these behavioral patterns. As long as coercive and unilateral approaches persist, the prospect of reaching a stable and lasting agreement is likely to remain uncertain.
Nournews