Summary
Iran’s regime uses patience, manipulation, and a fundamentally different understanding of negotiations to outmaneuver the West. While Western leaders seek compromise and mutual gain, Iran views negotiations as victories for winners to impose terms on losers.
Signed agreements mean little to Iranian leaders, who see compromise as humiliation. Through cultural subtlety, propaganda, and long-term strategy, Iran consistently seeks to weaken adversaries while projecting victory.
The only language Iran respects is power. To prevent Iran’s eventual rise, the West must support Iranians in overthrowing their current regime.
The threat posed by the Iranian regime is far from over. Iranian leaders have mastered the art of patience, procrastination, and opportunism – waiting for the right moment to strike. Although weakened, the regime is not mortally wounded. As long as it remains in power, the West, Israel, and moderate Arab allies remain in danger.
Iran’s leadership consistently probes and tests its adversaries, convinced that time and persistence will eventually deliver victory. The way Iranian and Western leaders understand negotiations reflects this difference in worldview.
Negotiations: Two Different Worlds
For Westerners, negotiations are about compromise and achieving win-win outcomes. Each side gains something, and both leave the table stronger. For Iranians, negotiations occur only after one side has already won. The winner dictates the terms; the loser must submit.
Thus, when Iranians see Western leaders eager to negotiate before achieving decisive victory, they interpret it as weakness – an admission of lacking the will or ability to impose terms. From their perspective, there is no such thing as a win-win outcome. The formula is simple: I win; you lose.
This mindset shapes how Iranians interpret events like the Iran-Israel-U.S. 12-day war. From their perspective, Israel and the U.S. lacked the resolve or ability to destroy the regime – therefore, Iran chalked up a victory.
Agreements as Tools, Not Commitments
Iranians treat signed agreements as temporary tools, not binding commitments. They may sign documents “to accommodate” others but rarely intend to honor them. Agreements are stepping-stones toward ultimate victory, not mutual compromises.
In Iranian political culture, comprom ise is humiliation – a fate worse than death. An Iranian once admitted the closest cultural term to “compromise” is tanazzol – which more accurately means “to let oneself be degraded.” While Arabs may directly blame adversaries for wrongdoing, Iranians prefer subtlety – maneuvering opponents into surrender while making them believe they are still in control.
Cultural Subtlety and Manipulation
Iranians often present themselves as gracious and empathetic, mastering the art of sincerity to disarm Westerners. They use this understanding to maneuver others into conceding ground. This subtle strategy extends to propaganda, often expressed through political cartoons or media satire, reinforcing Iran’s self-image as the victor.
Example 1: The Hostage Crisis (1979)
A cartoon depicted American hostages being shoved into a car trunk. One hostage smiles, saying, “Wow, you cannot imagine how much I have been dreaming my whole life about having the opportunity to go for a ride in the trunk of your car.” For Iranians, this mocked America’s humiliation while the hostage pretended to maintain dignity.
Example 2: The 2015 Nuclear Accord Negotiations
Iranian media caricatured U.S. leaders John Kerry and Barack Obama during the talks. Kerry’s broken leg was exaggerated with larger crutches, symbolizing weakness. Obama’s skin was darkened to highlight “defects” as the U.S. gave in. The Iranian message: America submits, Iran dictates.
Former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry with crutches during a round of negotiations with Iran. (Wikimedia)
The Only Language Iran Respects: Power
Iranian leaders fear only strength and the credible willingness to use it. While Israel and the U.S. performed impressively during the 12-day war, Iran views time as its ally. It bides its time, expecting the West to lose interest and retreat. If that happens, Iran could reemerge with nuclear weapons and resources to threaten the U.S., Israel, and Sunni Arab allies.
The Path Forward
The West must recognize this cultural and strategic gap. The only sustainable solution is to support the Iranian people in freeing themselves from their regime. Otherwise, Iran’s long game could eventually topple its three greatest enemies: the U.S. and the West, Israel, and the Sunni Arab world. What sounds unimaginable to us is entirely plausible to them.
FAQ
How do Iranians view negotiations compared to Westerners?
Westerners see negotiations as opportunities for compromise and mutual gain. Iranians see them as battles where the winner dictates terms, and the loser submits.
Why do Iranians view compromise negatively?
In Iranian culture, compromise equals humiliation, which must be avoided at all costs. The closest term, tanazzol, implies degradation rather than mutual concession.
Do Iranians honor written agreements?
Generally, no. Agreements are treated as temporary tactics, useful for appearances but not binding commitments. They are steps toward eventual victory.
How do Iranians use propaganda to reinforce victory?
They employ cartoons, satire, and subtle media messaging to depict adversaries as weak and humiliated, strengthening Iran’s self-image as the victor.
What is the article’s proposed solution to the Iranian challenge?
Since Iran only respects power, the West must demonstrate strength while helping Iranians liberate themselves from their oppressive regime. Without this, Iran may eventually threaten the U.S., Israel, and Sunni Arab states.