By Kambiz Zare
[Dr. Zare is Professor of International Business and Geostrategy at KEDGE Business School in France. The views expressed are his own.]
The latest rounds of negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program highlight a fundamental reality: in politics—as in war and in dealmaking—success often depends on timing and on bold, decisive action. Recognizing the right moment and acting with conviction can be the difference between a breakthrough and a breakdown.
Iran’s current position at the negotiating table reflects the steep cost of past miscalculations. Today, officials of the Islamic Republic appear willing to accept minimal concessions — a stark contrast to earlier periods, when far more favorable terms were available. Meanwhile, the U.S. administration has adopted a far tougher stance, insisting on the complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, reflecting a shift in Iran’s leverage and the level of trust that it enjoys.
ANALYSIS: Reaching A Deal in Iran-U.S. Nuclear Talks Will Be Tough
In 2006, during the Paris negotiations, the P5+1 powers were willing to accept limited, non-threatening uranium enrichment. Yet the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic chose not to honor the commitments of his negotiating team. Most analysts believe this rejection was driven by internal regime rivalries rather than Iran’s national interests.
Back then, many voices warned that the West’s offer—arguably more generous than anything permitted by UN Security Council resolutions—was a one-time chance. It was a real opening: an opportunity that could have pulled Iran back from the brink, spared its people years of economic suffering, and ended its growing international isolation.
Yet that moment was lost. The regime, blinded by internal rivalries and ideological rigidity, misread the stakes—and in doing so, slammed shut a diplomatic window that may never open again.
The geopolitical landscape has undergone a profound transformation since the 2015 signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran and key global powers, including the United States. The agreement, once a cornerstone of international efforts to limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions, has since unraveled.
In 2018, President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the deal, arguing it failed to adequately address Iran’s ballistic missile program and its growing regional influence. The reimposition of the “maximum pressure” campaign led even traditionally sympathetic countries to enforce sanctions against Iran.
Today, Iranian officials seek terms that strikingly resemble those they previously dismissed—only now, from a position of significantly reduced leverage. The United States, sensing these new circumstances, is demanding not only stronger guarantees and broader concessions but a total annihilation of Iran’s nuclear program.
Today, Iran’s influence in countries where it once invested heavily—both financially and strategically—has all but collapsed. Recent reports highlight how Tehran’s grandiose ambitions in Syria, where it once envisioned a “$400 billion opportunity,” quickly unraveled after then President Bashar al-Assad fled to Russia. A similar erosion of influence has occurred, albeit under different conditions, in other key arenas such as Iraq and Lebanon.
Iran now negotiates from a far weakened position, burdened by years of economic contraction, currency devaluation, economic mismanagement, corruption and widespread public protests and uprisings. Despite the leadership’s repeated claims that sanctions are toothless, and the protesters are foreign agents, the reality on the ground tells a different story of an isolated nation rich in history and culture.
There is a broader lesson here. Democratic governments — for all their imperfections — possess a built-in capacity for self-correction. Errors can be detected, examined, and corrected. Leaders are replaceable. Policies can change.
Autocracies, by contrast, lack this capacity for renewal. Decisions made in error often persist, sustained by ideology, authoritarian pride, terrorizing the population and factional power struggles. The burden of these mistakes falls not on the ruling elite, but by ordinary people who have little influence over their country’s direction.
In Iran, the absence of political accountability has allowed misjudgments to harden into long-term policy failures. The population, lacking meaningful political engagement and international support, is impacted by decisions made by a leadership that operates without transparency.
The people, excluded from politics and international support, suffer from the decisions of a secretive leadership.
PPI Survey Indicates Most Iranians Want Regime Change, Secular Government
President Trump recently said that he wants Iran “to be a wonderful, great, happy country.” However, the reality is that without a fundamental shift—towards transparency, civic inclusion, and accountability—Iran’s future remains constrained. In global affairs, second chances are rare. But when they do appear, only nations prepared to recognize and act on them can hope to escape the weight of past missteps. Failure to do so risks consequences that may endure for generations.
France Proposes Sanctions on Iran Officials Responsible for Detention of French Citizens
Regime Change Is Only Solution For Iran, Say DC Conference Speakers
‘Iran Prosperity Project’ Launched in Washington, With Reza Pahlavi’s Support
