U.S. President Donald Trump says a deal is imminent. Tehran hedges on the timeline. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
The growing trend is that each round of negotiations appears to leave Iran with more leverage than it had before. Should the emerging deal merely pause the conflict while rewarding Iran with money, time, control over Hormuz and regional leverage, it may end the conflict with the United States. It will not end the war. Rather, it will just reorganize the battlefield against Israel.
Tehran may have transformed Hormuz from a recurring threat into a bargaining chip. It has also successfully linked cessation of hostilities to the disengagement of Israel from its attacks on Hezbollah. Israel is not party to any such understanding and, as of this week, has again struck Beirut.
Whether Tehran attempts to leverage that action before any agreement is even finalized is anyone’s guess. Whatever understanding emerges between Tehran and Washington, it appears likely to restore Iranian oil revenue that was previously threatened by the confrontation over Hormuz.
Now, however, Tehran can portray any future Israeli response to Hezbollah aggression as a violation of the understanding and use it to pressure Washington to restrain Israeli action. Over time, that dynamic could leave Israel facing renewed attacks while finding its freedom to respond increasingly constrained.
One cannot imagine Israel will be totally cowed by such U.S. demands, though the pressure on these allies will become increasingly fierce as they both face critical elections. With midterm elections approaching, Trump has every incentive to present a diplomatic success rather than another open-ended confrontation.
Benjamin Netanyahu, who defines political deftness, is hoping to extend his record as Israel’s longest-serving prime minister. Ignoring pressure from Washington may strengthen that drive since plenty of Israelis love seeing a Jewish thumb in the eye of Uncle Sam.
Further complicating the landscape is the likely release of billions of dollars to Iran as part of their “compliance” with the deal. If that happens, why would Tehran not resume its stranglehold on the straits after receiving a few tranches of tens of billions of dollars? The pattern would hardly be unprecedented.
As a psychotherapist, I spent decades observing passive-aggressive behavior. Progress is promised, responsibility is deferred, more time is requested, and the underlying conflict remains unresolved.
Iran’s negotiating style often follows a remarkably similar pattern. The danger is not that Iran will immediately violate an agreement. It is that it can repeatedly test its limits, use its new momentum to create new crises, and then retreat just enough to extract further concessions while preserving the broader understanding.
Trump has repeatedly threatened major consequences, only to retreat from them once negotiations resumed. The concern is that should he go through with this “deal,” it will only enable the open and proud sponsors of global terrorism.
And regional actors will take note. If Iran emerges from the conflict with greater diplomatic room to maneuver, then allies and partners throughout the Gulf will adjust accordingly. As long as the neighborhood bully has fended off the biggest threat in the world, it will wield disproportionate influence in its backyard.
All of this leaves Jerusalem even more isolated. Iran will see its prime target as weakened with every squeak heard from the U.S.-Israel relationship. It will take time to rebuild. Tehran has spent decades proving that it views setbacks differently from Western governments. A tactical defeat is temporary. A strategic opportunity is forever.
The real question is not whether a deal will be signed. The real question is what opportunities Tehran will gain once it is.
