Iran’s approach to diplomacy amid the ongoing Middle East conflict reveals a uniquely sophisticated strategy: the Islamic Republic leverages both indirect and direct negotiations to protect its interests, project power, and shift blame. This dual-track engagement is central to Iran’s success in orchestrating and supporting anti-Israel terror groups, fueling instability across the region, and presenting Western adversaries with complex dilemmas in both diplomacy and security.
A Calculated Balance: Direct and Indirect Diplomacy
Iran’s foreign policy is rooted in ambiguity. Through indirect channels, often using third-party states such as Qatar, Oman, and Iraq, Iranian officials communicate with international powers, including Israel’s allies, without formal recognition or direct exposure. This allows Tehran to maintain plausible deniability regarding its involvement in the region’s persistent violence, while exerting maximum influence over developments in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen.
Such indirect talks have become particularly relevant in the wake of the October 7, 2023 massacre in southern Israel, when Hamas terrorists—backed, trained, and funded by Iran—perpetrated the deadliest attack against Jews since the Holocaust. Simultaneously, Iran’s diplomatic corps continued to pursue contacts with Western governments, using intermediaries to discuss hostages, nuclear enrichment, and lifting of sanctions—all while Iran-backed proxies escalated attacks on Israel and international interests.
Proxies as Instruments of Policy
Iran’s diplomatic maneuvering cannot be separated from its broader project: the creation, arming, and support of a network of regional proxies known as the “Axis of Resistance.” This includes Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, militant groups in Syria and Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen. Under the direction of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), these groups receive advanced weaponry, funding, and military training.
The dual-track strategy enables Iran to direct these proxies towards goals aligned with its ideological and strategic agenda, such as the destruction of Israel and the expulsion of US and Western influence from the region. Tehran can escalate or de-escalate violence through its proxies while simultaneously claiming a constructive stance in diplomatic talks, portraying itself as a reasonable actor in contrast to its battlefield aggression.
Hostage Diplomacy and Psychological Warfare
One of the starkest examples of Iran’s asymmetric strategy is its use of “hostage diplomacy.” Israeli hostages are held by Hamas in Gaza under horrifying conditions, while Iran inserts itself, often through Qatari and Egyptian mediators, into negotiations over their release. The aim is to extract maximum concessions from Israel—usually through the release of convicted terrorists—without appearing directly involved. This allows Iran to pressure Israel’s society and government and inflame divisions among the Jewish state’s Western allies.
Despite international condemnation, Iran continues to provide the material backing for such abductions, while its diplomats work to shape the terms of discussion. Innocent Israeli civilians are used as bargaining chips, while Iran’s direct culpability remains obscured by the layers of mediation.
Escalation by Proxy: The Broader War
Iran’s pursuit of direct talks—in tightly controlled circumstances such as nuclear negotiations with the United States—serves a different purpose. When interacting directly, Iranian officials display inflexibility, insisting on maximalist demands while making only symbolic or reversible concessions. Iran’s enrichment of uranium near weapons-grade levels proceeds in parallel with negotiations, as does its ongoing support for rocket and drone attacks on Israel—from both Gaza and the northern border with Lebanon.
This multifaceted approach allows Iran to adjust its posture in real time, respond to shifts in public opinion, and exploit divisions within Western coalitions. By rotating from direct to indirect engagement, Iran keeps adversaries guessing, securing incremental gains without the risks of full-scale war or diplomatic isolation.
International Failure to Confront Iranian Aggression
For Israel, the existential danger posed by Iran is clear. The Islamic Republic’s stated objective remains the elimination of the Jewish state, as evidenced in its domestic propaganda, foreign policy, and operational support for anti-Israel terrorism. Yet, Western powers have often struggled to present a united front. Efforts to reengage with Iran after the signing of the 2015 nuclear deal, and subsequent attempts at economic rapprochement, have failed to diminish Iranian support for terrorism or reduce its destabilizing regional activities.
Western diplomatic strategies have at times drawn false parallels between Israeli defensive actions and Iranian proxy attacks, overlooking Iran’s unambiguous role in orchestrating and enabling terror. The international community’s reliance on indirect channels and third-party mediation for engagement with Iran inadvertently enables Tehran’s deception and duplicity, rewarding bad-faith negotiation with economic or diplomatic incentives.
Israeli Response: Defense, Diplomacy, and Deterrence
Israel’s reaction to Iran’s maneuvering has been multipronged. The Israel Defense Forces continue to strike Iranian assets and proxies in Syria, prevent weapons transfers to Hezbollah, and conduct intelligence operations aimed at exposing the Iranian regime’s activities. Meanwhile, Israeli diplomats press for tougher international action, focusing on renewed economic sanctions and increased support for defensive systems such as Iron Dome.
Inside Israel, the ongoing hostage crisis underscores the high cost of indirect diplomacy. The country faces a stark choice: accede to lopsided exchanges that may embolden future abductions, or risk harm to civilians by refusing Iranian-backed terms. This is a moral and strategic calculus unique to democracies, and one Iran understands all too well.
Regional Implications and the Path Forward
Iran’s double game has reshaped the Middle East. Its entrenchment in Syria has perpetuated a brutal civil war. The Houthis’ attacks on Red Sea shipping threaten global commerce. Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal continues to grow unabated, presenting a strategic threat on Israel’s northern frontier. The Abraham Accords—normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states—offer a partial counterweight, but Iran’s penetration of weak or divided states remains the greatest impediment to lasting regional peace.
To effectively counter Iran, Israel and its partners will need to close the gap between military pressure and diplomatic engagement. This means exposing Iran’s duplicity, demanding accountability for support of terrorism and hostage-taking, and confronting the regime’s efforts at destabilization both on the battlefield and in the negotiating room.
Conclusion
Iran’s dual-track diplomacy, anchored by indirect and direct engagement, is designed to shield Tehran from consequence while aggressively pursuing hegemony through its proxy network. Israel’s response—military, diplomatic, and intelligence-driven—reflects the urgency and complexity of the threat. The wider international community faces a crucial choice: acknowledge the true nature of Iranian strategy, or risk rewarding a regime whose goal remains the annihilation of Israel and the spread of terror across borders. The stakes, as the events since October 7 have made clear, have never been higher.
