Iran is currently navigating a dual approach in its foreign policy, simultaneously engaging in negotiations with the United States to ease crippling economic sanctions while escalating hostile activities against U.S. interests and allies in the Middle East through a network of armed proxies. This dual strategy—often perceived as contradictory—is a deliberate effort by Tehran to maximize its leverage both diplomatically and militarily, in pursuit of its core national interests: economic survival, regional dominance, and the preservation of the Islamic regime.
The Islamic Republic’s participation in ongoing talks with Washington—often mediated through European channels—centers on key Iranian demands: the lifting of economic sanctions that have devastated the country’s economy, the release of billions in frozen overseas assets, and the normalization of its position on the international stage. Iranian officials seek to remove global concerns and penalties related to their illicit nuclear and missile programs, insisting that Tehran’s conduct conforms to international law.
Despite these diplomatic efforts, Iranian-backed attacks across the region have intensified. In Syria and Iraq, American military bases face frequent assaults from militia groups affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). In Yemen, the Houthi movement, armed and financed by Tehran, launches missile and drone attacks against shipping traffic and regional targets. Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza—both direct Iranian beneficiaries—escalate their campaigns against Israel, with increasing sophistication and lethality.
This behavior is not accidental. Iranian policymakers view engagement with the U.S. as a tactical necessity—negotiation with adversaries is permitted insofar as it serves the regime’s strategic objectives. At the same time, destabilizing activities across the Middle East allow Tehran to project power, intimidate rivals, and influence the negotiating table by raising the costs for American and allied intervention.
Observers in Israel and the United States have warned that Iran’s attempts to decouple its diplomatic overtures from its sponsorship of violence are disingenuous. Israeli intelligence and defense officials highlight that every Iranian negotiation track is underpinned by an explicit threat: should Tehran’s demands not be met, its proxies can widen the regional conflict at will. The 2023 October 7 Hamas massacre—the deadliest antisemitic attack since the Holocaust—was both a demonstration of Iran’s reach and a stark reminder of the regime’s broader ambitions.
Historical context reveals that this dualism is intrinsic to Tehran’s modus operandi. Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran adopted a policy of overt antagonism toward the U.S. and Israel, branding them as existential threats while remaining willing to strike deals when advantageous. The IRGC, both a military and economic juggernaut, oversees Iran’s asymmetric warfare efforts and plays a pivotal role in orchestrating attacks by regional militias.
Iran’s “axis of resistance”—its umbrella term for terror proxies and affiliates—serves two purposes: to challenge Western and Israeli influence, and to ensure that any Western pressure is met with escalation or counterpressure elsewhere. Official statements from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and IRGC leadership repeatedly frame resistance against the “Great Satan” (the U.S.) and Israel as a sacred cause, justifying negotiations when they serve the regime’s survival and power projection goals.
For Washington, Iran’s approach complicates regional policy. Attempts by the Biden administration and European governments to limit Iran’s nuclear progress or human rights abuses via diplomacy often clash with Iran’s refusal to separate negotiations from its aggressive regional conduct. Every sanction relief measure or asset release carries the risk that Tehran might divert resources to military build-up and proxy operations rather than economic reform or compliance.
Israel remains vigilant regarding any progress in U.S.–Iran talks. Israeli leaders stress that reliance on diplomacy alone, absent credible deterrence and sustained pressure against Iran’s terrorism infrastructure, increases regional instability and encourages further Iranian adventurism. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz have repeatedly stated that disarming Iran’s proxies and denying Iran nuclear capability are inseparable from the goal of peace and security.
The regional consequences of Iran’s policies are profound: ongoing proxy wars in Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq have led to humanitarian disasters, the collapse of state institutions, and continued threats against Israel and Gulf States. The strategic calculation in Tehran is clear—so long as it can simultaneously pursue sanctions relief and threaten its adversaries, Iran sees benefits outweighing the diplomatic and economic costs.
As the cycle of negotiation and confrontation continues, Western powers and regional allies face a crucial test: whether they can develop a unified strategy that combines robust diplomacy with effective measures to contain and deter Iranian aggression. For Israel, the stakes remain existential—not only to stop the immediate terror threat, but to uphold long-term national security and regional stability in the face of a belligerent, ideologically driven adversary.
