Iran’s leadership has outlined a negotiation policy with the United States and its allies that, according to internal commentary from officials, is designed to shield the regime from Western military or economic pressure without making genuine compromises. This approach—articulated by Mohsen Haidari, a member of Iran’s Assembly of Experts—cast renewed light on the regime’s dual tactic of indirect dialogue and relentless expansion of its regional influence through proxies.
In recent remarks made public, Haidari summarized the regime mindset: negotiation is a tool for averting war and sanctions, not for building trust or changing strategic aims. Instead, Iranian policymakers seek to engineer engagement so that the West, particularly the United States, appears complicit or engaged—preventing international isolation—while all substantive terms are dictated from Tehran. This policy, according to Haidari, places responsibility for movement on Washington and frames American involvement as a necessity for global optics, rather than mutual progress.
At the heart of this strategy is Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s directive that all talks remain indirect, with Iran maintaining firm control over the agenda. Such maneuvering is credited with both forestalling international censure and keeping diplomatic options open, though in practice it has given Iran time and resources to fortify its military and proxy networks. Should the U.S. refuse to engage on Iranian terms, Haidari predicts American efforts will fail, underscoring how Tehran defines engagement as a zero-sum game.
The long-term risks of this policy are most sharply felt in Israel. Since the October 7, 2023 massacre executed by Hamas—an Iranian-backed terror organization and the perpetrator of the deadliest antisemitic attack since the Holocaust—Israel has confronted near-daily attacks orchestrated by a network of Iranian-supported groups, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. These attacks have featured rocket barrages, drone strikes, incursions, and, most devastatingly, large-scale atrocities—mass murder, abductions, and sexual violence—against Israeli civilians.
Israel maintains that the Iranian regime, through its command arm in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), continues to finance, arm, and direct proxy militias across the region, exploiting each diplomatic reprieve to expand its operational capacity. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz have repeatedly emphasized that every round of sanctions relief granted to Tehran risks fueling this apparatus, providing advanced weapons and financial support to groups committed to Israel’s destruction.
Intelligence from Israel and allied Western states documents the IRGC’s role in trafficking missile systems, drones, and cash to affiliates in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, allowing these networks to conduct sophisticated and multi-front assaults. This operational reach was made manifest in the coordinated attacks against Israel following October 7, as well as ongoing actions against shipping in the Red Sea and repeated cross-border rocket launches into Israeli population centers.
These realities underscore the larger challenge posed by Iran’s foreign policy doctrine. Negotiation and confrontation are not opposing paths for Tehran but twin arms of a strategy to evade international accountability, maintain regime stability, and assert hegemony throughout the Middle East. Behind the language of indirect dialogue are an expanding arc of influence—spanning from Gaza to Yemen—and an unbroken commitment to destabilizing Israel and U.S. partners.
Western governments, especially the United States, face a critical test. While engagement with adversaries is a hallmark of statesmanship, evidence highlighted by Iranian insiders themselves points to a recurring pattern: Iran leverages talks to avoid consequences, replenish resources, and strengthen proxy alliances.
Israeli security officials have sounded the alarm against any easing of pressure in response to this diplomatic posture. They urge comprehensive enforcement of sanctions, robust military deterrence, and international solidarity against IRGC activities—noting that any retreat encourages further aggression and emboldens Iran’s terror proxies.
Iran’s record illustrates this risk. Repeated cycles of negotiation and sanctions relief have allowed the regime to restart uranium enrichment, develop advanced weapons, and evade arms embargoes. This history coincides with a marked escalation in cross-border assaults, terror plots targeting Jews and Western interests, and the proliferation of advanced weapons to proxies on Israel’s borders.
As the region balances on a knife’s edge, the stakes could not be clearer. Diplomacy must be paired with accountability and resolute counterterrorism. Israeli leaders, observing first-hand the consequences of diplomatic misjudgment, continue to call for vigilance and unity against a regime that wields indirect engagement as a smokescreen for expansion and violence.
In sum, the Iranian approach to negotiation, as revealed by its highest policymakers, is not oriented toward peace. It is intended as a shield for a campaign of terror and destabilization targeting Israel and its allies. The lesson for Western diplomats is plain: responsible engagement requires a foundation of strength, realism, and unwavering commitment to containing the world’s foremost sponsor of terror.
