In the wake of the October 7, 2023 Hamas massacre in Israel—recognized as the deadliest antisemitic atrocity since the Holocaust—American policymakers are confronting a critical question: Should Iranian regime messaging shape U.S. policy in the Middle East? The answer, informed by the lessons of recent history, is vital as the region witnesses heightened tensions and continued acts of aggression orchestrated by Iran and its extensive proxy network.
Lessons from the 2015 Nuclear Agreement
The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), popularly known as the Iran nuclear deal, was heralded by many Western diplomats as a step toward regional stability. However, subsequent revelations painted a more troubling picture. Iran leveraged the flexibility of the JCPOA to sustain and even expand its nuclear and conventional capabilities, all while funneling billions of dollars towards proxy organizations including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and militias operating in Syria and Iraq.
International and Israeli intelligence reports revealed that Iran employed a dual strategy: publicly signaling willingness to cooperate with Western demands, while simultaneously concealing continued enrichment, weapons development, and support for terrorism. These maneuvers allowed Tehran to portray itself as conciliatory in diplomatic circles, even as it strengthened its power projection across the region—most notably at Israel’s borders.
Iran’s Messaging Strategy: Deception over Diplomacy
Tehran’s experienced negotiators and political elite have repeatedly alternated gestures of moderation and negotiation with aggressive clandestine actions. Foremost among these are acts of terror and subversion conducted by groups that Iran finances and directs. Such behavior—deliberate, consistent, and well-documented—demands that policymakers in Washington and allied capitals treat Iranian discourse with healthy skepticism.
The recent wave of Iranian overtures comes as the regime faces unprecedented economic pressure and strategic setbacks. Diplomats and officials who played central roles in engineering the 2015 deal are again seeking Western engagement, positioning themselves and the regime as misunderstood interlocutors. Yet, daily rocket attacks from Hamas and Hezbollah, sabotage attempts in international waters by Houthi forces, and disruption in Iraq and Syria by Iranian-linked militias, highlight fundamental continuity in Iran’s destabilizing agenda.
The Human Consequences: October 7th and Beyond
The magnitude of the October 7 massacre, perpetrated by Hamas and enabled by Iranian support, demonstrates the urgent stakes. Israeli civilian centers, including border communities and kibbutzim, suffered mass executions, abductions, and acts of torture—atrocities confirmed by international observers and Israeli authorities. The moral and strategic distinction between Israel, a democracy compelled to defend its population, and the network of totalitarian and terrorist actors sponsored by Tehran, could not be starker.
Netanyahu’s government, in the aftermath, has intensified its counterterrorism campaign, emphasizing Israel’s right and duty to self-defense against Iranian-orchestrated threats. The United States, under President Donald Trump, has reaffirmed solidarity with Israel and opposition to Iranian influence, citing direct evidence of IRGC involvement in regional and international terror attacks.
Regional Dynamics: The Abraham Accords and Arab-Israeli Alignment
The historic normalization agreements between Israel and key Arab states, known as the Abraham Accords, mark a profound strategic shift in Middle Eastern alliances. Driven in part by shared recognition of the Iranian threat, countries like the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have partnered with Israel on intelligence, defense, and economic projects. This growing bloc reinforces the argument that Iran’s so-called moderation is a smokescreen, potentially emboldened by concessions or reductions in Western pressure.
Israeli defense and intelligence communities stress that vigilance and robust deterrence, rather than conciliatory gestures towards Tehran, have successfully disrupted Iranian plots across the region. Collaboration with Arab partners is credited with foiling attacks and uncovering IRGC-led attempts at subversion, particularly as Iranian proxies escalate rocket attacks and cross-border infiltrations from Gaza and Lebanon.
Policy Implications for Washington
Analysts and former diplomats urge the U.S. administration to remain guided by evidence and historical precedent, not rhetorical signals from the Iranian regime. Key recommendations include:
- Maintaining and enforcing strict sanctions on the Iranian economy and leadership, conditioned on verified, permanent dismantlement of destabilizing capabilities.
- Bolstering military and intelligence cooperation with Israel and Abraham Accords signatories, especially in missile defense and counterterrorism.
- Publicly disclosing Iranian infractions of international norms and supporting investigations into war crimes and acts of terror carried out by proxies.
- Rejecting proposals for new nuclear or regional agreements absent transparent compliance and immediate, verifiable rollback of enrichment and weapons activities.
Conclusion: The High Cost of Misplaced Trust
The events since 2015 demonstrate the dangers of placing trust in Iranian regime communications. The JCPOA era, far from pacifying the region, coincided with unprecedented Iranian subversion and terror attacks on Israeli, American, and allied targets. In the present environment, characterized by terror attacks like those of October 7 and persistent threats from Iranian-backed militias, American security interests—and the lives of countless civilians—require a posture rooted in realism, skepticism, and alliance with credible regional partners.
By refusing to be swayed by unverified Iranian signals and instead prioritizing hard evidence and robust deterrence, U.S. policymakers can better safeguard both American and allied interests, and ensure that lessons from recent history guide strategy in the critical months ahead.
