For more than four decades, many Western politicians have entertained the hope that negotiations with the Islamist regime in Iran might lead to a change in its behavior and attitude toward the West. Time and again, diplomatic overtures, economic incentives and concessions have been extended to Tehran in the hope that engagement could moderate its policies. Yet, every attempt at diplomacy has failed. Unfortunately, it will continue to fail. Like it or not, the nature of the Iranian regime is inseparable from its ideological foundations. The Islamic Republic of Iran is not a normal state, or even a conventional dictatorship. It is an ideological entity that derives its very identity from opposition to the United States, Israel and the West.
From the moment the Islamic Republic was born out of the 1979 revolution, its core identity was forged in opposition to the United States and Israel. These were not just foreign policy stances but central tenets of the regime's existence. The regime refers to the United States as the "Great Satan" and Israel as the "Little Satan," righteously positioning itself as the force of divine justice against these supposed embodiments of evil.
For the Iranian mullahs, hostility toward America and Israel is not just rhetoric; it is the fundamental pillar of their legitimacy. If the regime were to abandon its enmity toward the U.S. and Israel, it would lose the entire justification upon which it has built its power.
Unlike pragmatic autocracies that engage in hostilities for strategic reasons but can shift course if necessary, the Iranian regime views opposition to the West as a religious duty. To befriend America or Israel would be to betray its revolutionary Islamist roots, the very reason, in their eyes, for their existence -- something it cannot afford to do without collapsing from within, any more than the US could abandon the principles of individual liberty, equal justice under the law or freedom of speech.
Despite this solid reality, successive Western governments have repeatedly tried to engage with Iran, probably in the belief that economic or diplomatic incentives could alter its behavior. The Obama administration's approach was a prime example. In pursuit of a "nuclear deal," Washington lifted sanctions, provided billions of dollars in sanctions relief, and even delivered pallets of cash to the ruling mullahs. The result? The Iranian regime did not just fail to moderate its behavior. On the contrary, it escalated its hostility, using the funds it received from the US to do it. "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" chants grew louder, Tehran funneled more money into terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas, enriched uranium faster than ever, and unleashed its aggression across the Middle East.
Rather than using the financial windfall from the nuclear deal to improve the lives of ordinary Iranians, the regime used it to consolidate its Islamist system, expand its military reach, and accelerate its nuclear weapons ambitions. Every negotiation with Iran has followed the same pattern: the Iranian regime makes promises, secures financial and political gains, and then, once it has strengthened its position, resumes its belligerent actions.
One of the greatest illusions in Western diplomacy is the belief that Iran can be persuaded to abandon its nuclear program through negotiations. The Islamic Republic views nuclear weapons as the ultimate guarantor of its survival. The regime has learned from history. It saw what happened to Libya's Muammar Gaddafi — who agreed to dismantle his nuclear program, only to be overthrown and killed. Iran's "Supreme Leader" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has explicitly stated that Gaddafi's fate proves why Iran should never surrender its nuclear weapons.
As with North Korea, negotiations may temporarily slow Iran's nuclear weapons development; they can never stop it. The regime will agree to talks only when it needs to buy time — whether to rebuild its economy under the cover of diplomacy, to lull the West into complacency, or to wait out an unfavorable political climate, such as a Trump. Always, the regime's goal remains the same: acquiring nuclear weapons to solidify its regional dominance and deter any attempt to remove the regime from power.
No country understands the Iranian regime better than Israel. Unlike some Western policymakers who continue to entertain illusions of diplomacy, Israel knows firsthand that the Iranian regime is built on lies and deceit. Iran's leadership has openly declared its goal of wiping Israel off the map, and Iran's constitution explicitly states its commitment to exporting the Islamist revolution across the world. For these reasons, Israel, probably concerned about the cost of losing time and opportunity, opposes any negotiations with Iran.
It is time for the West to abandon the failed strategy of engaging with Iran's regime. Diplomacy has not worked for more than four decades. Alas, it never will. The Islamic Republic is not a rational state actor that can be coaxed into cooperation through economic incentives or diplomatic overtures. It is an ideological regime that sees itself as divinely mandated to oppose the West.
If the West wants to truly confront the threat posed by the Iranian regime, it must stop pursuing fruitless negotiations and instead adopt a strategy of strength. That means fully supporting Israel's stance on Iran, and taking decisive measures to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Regrettably, the only way to neutralize the Iranian threat is through strength. The regime in Tehran understands only force. Until the West recognizes this reality, it will continue to be bamboozled while the Iranian regime buys time to advance its ambitions unchecked.
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, is a political scientist, Harvard-educated analyst, and board member of Harvard International Review. He has authored several books on the US foreign policy. He can be reached at dr.rafizadeh@post.harvard.edu
