Tehran vs. Washington: Honorable Diplomacy in the Shadow of Intelligent Deterrence

What this process ultimately paints is not a passive Iran accepting imposed conditions, but rather a multifaceted strategy in which “diplomacy,” “deterrence,” and “economics” have come to the fore simultaneously. At this point, the Islamic Republic of Iran, relying on the historical experience of Washington’s renegades and with a deep understanding of the region’s geopolitics, is advancing negotiations whose red lines have been drawn in advance, and the slightest retreat from them is not a tactical option, but a strategic impossibility. This reality is well reflected in the explicit statements of Iranian President Masoud Pezzekian, where, referring to the dark history of the United States in its interactions with Iran, he noted: “The bitter experience of past negotiations and the repeated renegades of the Americans dictate to us to act with utmost care and intelligence.”

1. Release of frozen assets; a test of Washington’s honesty
Iran’s most central demand in this round of talks is the immediate and unconditional release of a specific portion of the frozen assets and the provision of a transparent and guaranteed mechanism for the complete release of the rest. According to what has been heard about the details of the possible initial understanding, Tehran has considered the release of some of the frozen assets as a condition for the implementation of the agreement and has simultaneously demanded the determination of a specific mechanism for the continued release of assets during the negotiations. Referring to previous experiences in the field of violation of obligations by the other party, Iran has emphasized that any initial understanding or memorandum of understanding (MOU) must be accompanied by the release of at least some of the frozen assets; in a way that allows Iran to have practical access to these resources.
This demand is not a negotiation exaggeration, but at least a precondition for building trust from a party whose history of treaty violations, from the JCPOA to unilateral sanctions, is not hidden from any fair observer. The US effort to convert these resources into promises of future loans and remittances – as demonstrated in recent weeks by its efforts to postpone the release of resources until a final agreement on the nuclear issue – is precisely the point that Tehran is firmly opposed to. Iran’s message is clear: if Washington is not honest about releasing the assets of the Iranian people, none of the other clauses of the understanding can be trusted. This position is not only completely legitimate from the perspective of international law, but also strategically keeps the initiative in Tehran’s hands. Iran’s warning to Washington can also be analyzed in this context, as any new obstruction could lead to Tehran reconsidering the process of talks.

2. Priority of ending the war over any other issue; strategic separation of the agenda
Another strategic point in these negotiations is the phased separation of issues and the insistence on the priority of ending the war over any other discussion. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei stated bluntly: “At this stage, all our focus is on ending the war” and “we know that our nuclear issue has been a pretext for two wars of aggression against the Iranian nation.”
Based on the details obtained, Iran has not accepted any commitments in the nuclear field at this stage and has postponed all these discussions until after the implementation of the US commitments. The claims made that Iran is committed to removing nuclear materials or suspending peaceful nuclear activities for 10 to 20 years have been strongly denied, and the draft of a possible understanding is essentially devoid of any details about Iran’s nuclear activities.
This approach reflects a smart understanding of the negotiating field: as long as the war on all fronts – including the cessation of the Zionist regime’s conflicts against Lebanon – has not ended, talking about Iran’s peaceful nuclear program is a strategic diversion from the main issue. With this tactic, Tehran has effectively put Washington in a position of accountability and proven that the first priority is to end the crisis that the United States and its allies have fueled in the region.
The request for the withdrawal of American combat forces from Iran’s periphery can also be analyzed in this framework: Tehran will not accept that its negotiating partner simultaneously maintains a direct military threat to Iran’s national security.

3. The Strait of Hormuz; Non-negotiable sovereignty and rejection of imposed protocols
One of the most precise and strategic clauses of a possible understanding that demonstrates the sophistication and precision of the Iranian negotiating team is the issue of the Strait of Hormuz. Esmail Baghaei stated clearly in this regard: “The Strait of Hormuz has nothing to do with the United States. A mechanism must be defined between us and Oman as coastal countries.”

In this regard, Baqai stated: “The international community knows that insecurity is caused by the aggressive actions of the United States and the Zionist regime. They understand that the responsible action of Iran and Oman to create a mechanism for the safe passage of ships through this waterway is in the interest of the international community.”
The categorical denial of the existence of any protocol for the inspection or control of Iranian ships by the United States after the lifting of the blockade also shows that Tehran has not left even an inch of its soil and water in the agreement and the idea of ​​any American supervision of Iranian shipping is a complete illusion. An informed source stated firmly: “There is no mention of this issue in any of the clauses of the memorandum of understanding and Iran has not and will not give the Americans any permission to take such an action.”

4. Lifting oil sanctions and the $10 billion horizon
In the economic dimension, the complete lifting of sanctions on oil, petrochemicals, and their derivatives is another pillar of the possible understanding, according to which Washington commits to fully lift Iran’s oil sanctions during the negotiations. The estimate of $10 billion in revenue from the sale of crude oil over a 60-day period shows exactly what Iran is looking for from these negotiations: tangible, immediate, and verifiable economic benefits. Tehran is well aware that trusting Washington’s paper promises will only repeat the bitter experience of the JCPOA; therefore, it is keeping all options on the table and acting solely on the basis of guaranteed benefits.

5. Internal cohesion; Iran’s Greatest Strategic Capital
Meanwhile, the Iranian President’s insistence that “no decision will be made outside the framework of the Supreme National Security Council and without the coordination and permission of the Supreme Leader” and his call to all agencies, platforms, and movements to support diplomatic decisions so that “a single and coherent voice is transmitted from Iran to the world” demonstrate an unparalleled internal cohesion.
Pezizian explicitly stated that Iran “has never been and will never be the initiator of war,” while emphasizing that “America will not win this conflict, and the only result of this situation continuing is serious damage to regional countries and world peace.” This cohesion is Iran’s greatest strategic asset against an opponent that has always sought to create divisions and exploit internal disputes.
Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, the speaker of the Iranian parliament and head of the negotiating team, also warned Washington that “the Iranian armed forces will give a stronger and more crushing response to the United States if war breaks out again.” The unified voice from Tehran sends a firm message to Washington: Iran is sitting at the negotiating table, united and united.

6. Pakistan’s mediation and regional diplomatic moves; a sign of Tehran’s resolve, not its weakness
The intense diplomatic moves of recent days – including the visit of Field Marshal Asim Munir, the commander of the Pakistani army, to Tehran and his intensive meetings with the Iranian president, speaker of the parliament, and foreign minister – are not a sign of Iran’s weakness or isolation, but rather a testament to Tehran’s firm determination to resolve the crisis through diplomacy.
The Pakistani military announced in an official statement that “the consultations of the army chief in Iran have made encouraging progress towards reaching a final understanding” and that the talks “focused on accelerating the ongoing consultative process to support peace and stability in the region.” Reza Amiri-Moghaddam, Iran’s ambassador to Islamabad, also referred to these developments and announced that a “positive step” would be taken if the US side was sufficiently committed.
Along with Pakistan, Qatar has also actively entered the scene. The presence of the Qatari delegation in Tehran was confirmed by Iranian officials, and regional analysts believe that Doha’s role is complementary to Pakistan’s mediation, and that Qatar is trying to maintain an “atmosphere of trust” and prevent the collapse of communication channels.
Pakistani Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif, in a phone call with regional leaders and Donald Trump, also emphasized Islamabad’s peaceful efforts and appreciated the “tireless efforts” of his army chief throughout this process. Pakistan's Defense Minister Khawaja Asif also expressed optimism that Islamabad's mediation efforts were gradually moving towards a "positive outcome."
An important point in this regard is China's active role. During his official visit to Hangzhou, Shahbaz Sharif, in addition to expanding economic cooperation, put on the agenda consultations on Islamabad's mediation in the Iran-US talks and examining a joint initiative to end the war. Al Jazeera reported that China supports Pakistan's mediation efforts and, according to Andrabi, a spokesman for the Pakistani Foreign Ministry, has presented a five-point initiative in this regard.
The entry of the Pakistani army chief into the negotiations and the continued back-and-forth between the mediators show that Iran's messages have been so strong and well-reasoned that the mediators are forced to continuously convey them to Washington, not vice versa. Tehran is an active player in this field that dictates its terms, not a passive player that accepts the terms.

7. War and the Collapse of the “Unconditional Surrender” Doctrine

For years, one of the most important tools of pressure against Iran was the assertion that a combination of military threats, sanctions, and security pressure could ultimately force the Islamic Republic to make a strategic retreat or even “surrender.” This was not just political rhetoric; it was part of a strategic theory in Washington and Tel Aviv. Months before the war began, Donald Trump had repeatedly and explicitly spoken of Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” a phrase that indicated that the ultimate goal was not simply to change Tehran’s tactical behavior, but to change its calculation of the path to hard power.

The US and Israel, despite the extensive use of their military and security capabilities, were unable to eliminate the most important component necessary for the realization of this theory: Iran's "response power." The response power is not limited to the military dimension, but rather the mobilization of a set of political, social, security, economic, and military capacities to confront foreign aggression, creating a situation in front of the enemy that can be described as "strategic paralysis." If the strategy of forcing surrender was to be realized, its prerequisite was to disable the ability to impose reciprocal costs; a capacity that could make any military action appear low-cost for the other side. However, maintaining this ability fundamentally changed the equation. In fact, the most important result of the war was not only revealed in the military field, but also at the level of strategic perception. This war showed that the use of military means against Iran, contrary to some assumptions of the last few decades, does not necessarily end in the desired point of its designers. In other words, the theory that for years had relied on the possibility of forcing Iran to surrender through the threat or use of hard power faced a serious challenge.
At the same time, the war also highlighted another reality: Iran’s place in the regional and global equations is more than what can be measured solely by economic or military indicators. The Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz have once again shown that energy security, global trade, and regional stability cannot be defined without taking into account Iran’s role. This is precisely the point that highlights the importance of Rubio’s statements about the Strait of Hormuz; where even the other side is forced to speak from the perspective of “crisis management,” not simply applying pressure.
The rise in oil prices and global investors’ concerns about the future of the crisis in the Persian Gulf, which Reuters also pointed out, are themselves evidence of the fact that global economic stability is not possible without stability in the Strait of Hormuz, and stability in the Strait of Hormuz will not be achieved without respect for Iranian sovereignty.

Conclusion: A possible understanding, not the beginning of a new reality, but the revelation of a strategic truth
What we are witnessing in this round of negotiations is an “honorable diplomacy” based on four pillars:
- First, distrust of Washington based on historical experience;
- Second, a phased separation of issues and intelligent prioritization of the agenda, with the priority of ending the war over nuclear issues;
- Third, maintaining and exercising deterrence in the military and security spheres and emphasizing the irreversibility of Iran’s sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz;
- And fourth, pursuing tangible, immediate, and guaranteed economic benefits instead of trusting in paper promises.
If a memorandum of understanding is signed between Tehran and Washington, it should be considered the result of a change in the post-war balance and calculations rather than the product of a mere diplomatic compromise. The possible understanding is not the beginning of a new reality, but rather a sign of the revelation of a truth that the war highlighted: Iran, by maintaining its ability to respond, has not only passed a costly stage, but its strategic position in regional and global equations has also undergone a significant upgrade. Pezizian summarized this truth as follows: “Iran is not seeking tension or excesses, and the only goal it is seriously pursuing is the realization of the legitimate and legal rights of the Iranian people.” Until the United States understands this simple equation that lasting peace in the region will not be achieved through unilateral concessions, but through a balanced agreement based on mutual respect, the green light for negotiations will not be given. Iran, relying on its domestic power, national cohesion, strategic depth, and unparalleled social capital, will continue to pursue its national interests with or without an agreement. What is happening in the arena of regional diplomacy today is not a retreat from principled positions, but another manifestation of the same power that was displayed on the battlefield of Iran and changed the enemy's equations forever.