Iranian officials persist in delaying, stalling, and re-evaluating as the US engages in critical discussions about a nuclear agreement with Iran. Essentially, they aim to outlast until President Trump redirects his focus to a more pressing domestic or international crisis.
Should they finalize the agreement, the Iranian government may dilute the terms enough for Trump to claim success and withdraw. They can then concentrate on addressing domestic issues, which pose the greatest risk to their regime.
The swift downfall of the Assad regime in Syria offers a cautionary example to Iranian leaders. That collapse was driven by internal factors, not external intervention.
An equivalent popular resistance exists within Iran. 80% of the population opposes the current Islamic regime. In recent years, the country has experienced widespread protests, with citizens frequently shouting slogans like “Death to the Islamic Republic” and “Death to the dictator.”
Adding to the challenges facing Iranian leaders is the growing anxiety among their rank and file, the individuals executing the regime’s directives. They have witnessed their once-esteemed Islamic Republic endure consecutive humiliations as Israel and the United States withdraw from their longstanding partnerships.
Amidst this international tension, the Iranian establishment urges Donald Trump to “hibernate” until he exits the political arena, as noted by a well-known yet anonymous scholar in Iran for security reasons. Meanwhile, the government has intensified its domestic suppression efforts to manage the rising discontent among the populace.
The effectiveness of the Iranian regime’s approach hinges on whether they expand the negotiations to consider how the agreement will affect the Iranian citizens. Presently, the proposed terms focus exclusively on Iran’s military assets, allowing for sanctions relief in return for strict limitations on its nuclear endeavors.
If compelled to accept such an arrangement, the Islamic Republic is likely to comply. Once global scrutiny fades, the Iranian regime would receive financial windfalls from lifted sanctions, enabling them to quell internal dissent and swiftly reinforce control throughout the country.
Historical precedents exist in this context. Iraq, drained after its eight-year conflict with Iran in 1988, accepted a deal to end hostilities, which was framed as a commitment to fight until victory, only to return to reorganize and rebuild. Relaunching economic ties with the outside world was paired with ruthless suppression of domestic dissent, including mass executions of around 5,000 political prisoners while funneling significant resources into their destructive agendas in Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria.
A comprehensive accord prioritizing Iran’s military capacity could enable the regime to navigate the forthcoming crisis posed by the Iranian populace without significant harm. An overwhelming majority reject the administration’s policies in conflicts with the US and Israel and their support for regional proxies. The core principles of the Islamic Republic would remain intact, maintaining its strategy of enduring patience in its interactions with the West. By ignoring historical context, Trump’s grand deal merely delays resolution, leaving the next US administration with the inevitable fallout from the entrenched regime.
To safeguard US national interests, the Trump administration ought to bolster the Iranian populace, who represent the most significant long-term challenge to the ruling government in Iran.
The administration could implement this by incorporating parallel strategies into negotiations that aim to maximize support for the Iranian people through a bipartisan congressional Maximum Support Act. This approach seeks to ensure citizens’ access to online communications. Such backing should include stipulations that limit the Iranian regime’s capacity to target protesters and political prisoners after any agreement is reached, including demands for an immediate end to political executions, inspections of UN facilities such as Evin Prison, cessation of lethal force against demonstrators, and stopping the prosecution of peaceful opposition figures.
Initially, Iran may reject these conditions, but they might reconsider as economic conditions continue to deteriorate, the threat of warfare looms larger, and regime personnel begin to abandon their uniforms to blend in with civilians.
The Trump administration has historically made significant errors that have prolonged the Iranian regime’s survival while enabling it to suppress widespread dissent. To forge a genuinely impactful agreement, Trump should not only focus on disarming Iran but also strive to defend and empower the Iranians who courageously seek to transform their oppressive regime.
Supporting the Iranian populace transcends moral obligation—it aligns with the national security interests of the United States.
Michael Eisner serves as an advisor for Iran’s Human Rights Centre, and Saeid Dehghan is a prominent Iranian human rights attorney; Parsi Law Collective.
