For its part, Iran has quite categorically rejected the United States’ invitation for Iran to join a broader diplomatic discussion in Sharm El-Sheikh. This decision makes clear the enormous tensions between Washington and Tehran. The refusal, articulated by Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi through social media, reflects the ongoing complexities of Iran’s domestic authority and its contentious role in the Middle East.
This expansive landscape is the setting to an unusual diplomatic standoff. Tehran’s theocratic dictatorship, headed by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei since 1989, is under growing pressure from within. Years of protests against conservative enforcement of hijab laws has eroded domestic legitimacy, inciting intra-societal counter-hegemony from diverse segments of the population. Though the regime continues to be challenged internally, it is holding the line against U.S. foreign policy in this area. They view it as compromised, particularly in light of the bombing of their nuclear assets and the January 2020 assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani by U.S. military forces.
Abbas Aragchi expressed Iran’s position clearly: “While favoring diplomatic engagement, neither President Pezeshkian nor I can engage with counterparts who have attacked the Iranian People and continue to threaten and sanction us.” Notably, his statement underscores the reality that the Iranian leadership is loath to deal with any country they consider adversarial.
After years of stalled diplomacy, Iran’s nuclear program remains the key sticking point in negotiations between Tehran and the U.S. and Israel. The U.S. demands restrictions on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, which Iran sees as an infringement on its sovereignty and national security. The country’s drive toward acquiring a nuclear weapon is inextricably linked to its larger ambitions for regional power and security.
In June, U.S. military action that included missiles and drone strikes targeted Iranian nuclear facilities, including their nuclear sites in Fordow, Isfahan, and Nantanz. These unilateral measures have only escalated tensions. They are pushing Iran to enhance its military capabilities, especially in air defenses and missile systems technologies. Iranian leadership sees these improvements as necessary for protecting national interests in an environment filled with threats.
The geopolitical environment is shifting so quickly. Iran is deepening its economic and military ties with China, Russia, and countries in its periphery as a countermeasure to U.S. sanctions and military aggression. This turning inward and toward allies represents a worrisome escalation of a geopolitically strategic turn away from American influence in the region. Abbas Milani, the director of Iranian studies at Stanford University, puts it this way: Iran—on this one—will hold its ground. It would further intensify threats from China, Russia and the U.S.’s own near abroad, thereby raising the price the U.S. must pay even further.
Even with these changes, there is a break in the ruling Iranian class in favor of foreign policy trajectory. Milani points out that “it has created a discussion and friction within the regime,” with some factions advocating for engagement with the U.S., suggesting that “we should have gone. Why not go and talk to Trump?” This change in foreign policy marks the beginning of a cultural wedge that had not previously existed. This modification is certainly an indication of the changing political mood in Iran.
Khamenei’s unwavering opposition to U.S. influence and Israel’s legitimacy remains central to his regime’s ideology. The Supreme Leader has devoted his life to thwarting U.S. objectives in the Middle East. This hardline approach renders any opportunity for compromise truly unattainable under the present majority.
Iran’s backing of militant proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah further complicates Iran’s foreign relations. But now, tempers are running high. Both the U.S. and Israel have called for an end to Iran’s support for these groups, which they see as a destabilizing force in the region. Milani asserts that “they want to see if they can force capitulation – meaning recognition of Israel [and] ending Iran’s role in the region.”
The invitation to Sharm El-Sheikh from former President Donald Trump was seen by some as an attempt to shift dynamics within the Iranian regime. While it might appear that Trump seeks a diplomatic path forward, “It would be great if we made a peace deal with them,” he stated. Experts caution against over-optimism given past failures in negotiations.
Milani reflects on this delicate situation: “It really is a very delicate situation in Iran. It requires the tact of a neurosurgeon.” The realities of practicing internal dissent at home weighed against the retributive consequences of external pressures, making for a highly volatile moment for any diplomatic overtures.
Observers widely agree that major change in leadership or direction within Iran is crucial for any meaningful accord. Without that, aspirations for a deep and wide change in policy are unlikely to succeed. Milani believes that “as long as Khamenei is alive and retains power,” transformative change is unlikely.