The persistent deadlock in negotiations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States over the nuclear issue is not merely a consequence of political inflexibility or technical disagreement. At its core lies a deeper epistemological chasm – an ideological clash between two fundamentally different conceptions of global order and legitimacy. While the United States continues to operate from a liberal hegemonic framework rooted in Enlightenment values of individualism, market rationality, and universalism, the Islamic Republic of Iran has historically positioned itself as a “third way” – an ideological and civilizational alternative to both Western liberalism and Soviet Marxism. This self-conception, articulated especially since the 1979 revolution, represents a challenge not just to US geopolitical interests but to the very ontological assumptions of a Western-centric world.
The ideological divergence became more pronounced after the Cold War, when political theorist Francis Fukuyama declared the ‘end of history,’ arguing that liberal democracy had triumphed as the final form of human governance. Although Fukuyama later revised his stance, the notion of liberal finality continued to shape US strategic behavior. In this worldview, any resistance to liberalism – particularly that emanating from Tehran – is perceived as an existential deviation rather than a legitimate alternative. Thus, Washington’s insistence on Iran abandoning its civilizational narrative is not merely about non-proliferation; it is a demand for epistemic surrender.
Despite five rounds of indirect negotiations facilitated by Oman, hopes for reviving a US-Iran nuclear agreement seem distant. A collapse would not merely be a product of technical disagreements, but rather the reflection of a deeper political unwillingness. A key turning point was the statement by Steve Witkoff, the acting US envoy on Iran, declaring that the United States would not allow Iran any uranium enrichment at all. In response, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei firmly asserted that Tehran’s nuclear decisions are a sovereign matter – not subject to American permission.
The Islamic Republic has consistently emphasized that uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes – such as medicine, energy, and research – is a non-negotiable right. By insisting on zero enrichment, Washington effectively undermined the basis for any practical deal. It also revealed a critical gap between the public posture of diplomacy and the actual political will to compromise.
As Wendy Sherman, the lead US negotiator in the 2015 deal, emphasized in a 2016 Harvard speech: “The agreement with Iran was not about trust; it was about verification. We built a structure that subjected Iran to the most intrusive inspections in history.”
According to Trita Parsi, founder of the National Iranian American Council, “What the US seeks is not merely a change in Iran’s behavior, but a transformation of its political identity – which is not a reasonable objective within a diplomatic framework.”
As former Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif stated in a 2019 interview with NBC: “We do not seek to build an atomic bomb; if we wanted to, we could have – but we don’t, because it has no place in our defense doctrine.”
Was the United States ever truly interested in an agreement? Its demands ignored Iran’s repeatedly stated red lines. This suggests the real goal may have been containment, not cooperation. The US has long pursued strategies aimed at limiting Iran’s regional influence, dismantling its nuclear and missile capabilities, and leveraging diplomacy as a means of delay rather than resolution. The rhetoric of some American and Israeli officials, including Netanyahu’s comparison to the Libya model, reinforces this perception.
Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, remarked in a March 2022 press briefing: “We have no evidence that Iran’s nuclear program has diverted toward military objectives, although our access has been restricted.”
A country that genuinely seeks agreement does not launch disinformation campaigns or escalate threats in parallel with diplomacy. The US approach has relied more on pressure and public narrative than on mutual recognition of sovereignty or strategic compromise. By ignoring Iran’s core demands while continuing to expand sanctions and regional pressure, Washington contributed directly to the current impasse.
The death of the nuclear deal in was not inevitable – it was chosen. Any future path toward stability requires honesty about political intentions. A sustainable agreement demands respect, not just for process, but for the fundamental dignity of both parties. Until then, the window for meaningful diplomacy will remain firmly shut.
According to members of the Iranian negotiating team, including Abbas Araghchi, Iran had expressed willingness to offer unprecedented transparency and cooperation. Tehran reportedly proposed that American companies could participate in Iran’s civilian nuclear sector – helping to build nuclear power plants and invest in peaceful nuclear energy infrastructure. If the United States’ concern was truly about preventing a nuclear weapon, this gesture should have been welcomed. However, the Trump administration dismissed these overtures, suggesting that the real issue was not weaponization, but denying Iran access to technological sovereignty altogether.
Peiman Salehi is an Iranian political philosopher and international affairs analyst. He writes on civilizational state theory, multipolarity, and critiques of liberalism.
