Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s arrival in Washington this week is not a routine diplomatic engagement. It comes at a moment of strategic significance , as the United States resumes indirect negotiations with Iran under Omani mediation and reassesses its broader posture.
Any serious discussion of Iran must begin with reality, not aspiration. The Islamic Republic of Iran is not a misunderstood power seeking reintegration into the international system. It is a regime born in blood, consolidated through repression, and projected outward through violence. In recent years alone, thousands of Iranian citizens have been killed during nationwide protests. These were not isolated abuses; they were expressions of doctrine.
This is a regime that has consistently chosen ideological domination over national development. While the Iranian population endures economic hardship and infrastructure decay reminiscent of a 1970s state, billions of dollars are diverted to regional proxies—Hezbollah, militias in Iraq and Syria, and armed movements across the region. The priority is not prosperity, but permanence. Not reform, but control.
At the same time, Tehran continues to expand one of the largest ballistic missile programs in the Middle East while relentlessly pursuing nuclear weapons capability. These efforts are not defensive. They are designed to alter the regional balance of power and to deter accountability. Against whom are these weapons directed? Against Israel, against the West, and against any regional order that resists revolutionary domination. The regime denies this reality because deception is not merely a tactic—it is a condition of survival.
This record matters because it defines the limits of trust. The Islamic Republic did not come to power through compromise, and it does not endure through honesty. It governs by manufacturing permanent enemies—external enemies to justify militarization, internal enemies to justify repression. Negotiation, for this regime, is not a path toward transformation but a tactical pause, a means to relieve pressure while preserving power.
It is in this context that Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff are engaged in an intense and enduring diplomatic effort. Their ambition is substantial: to test whether a sweeping agreement—one capable of dismantling Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities—remains conceivable. Their approach reflects a belief, widely shared, that peace and prosperity should ultimately be possible for the Iranian people.
But herein lies the central contradiction of this diplomatic moment. Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff operate within a philosophy of incentives, integration, and long-term stability; the Iranian regime through fear, ideological rigidity, and permanent confrontation. These are not competing negotiation strategies. They are irreconcilable visions of power and governance.
There is, however, a clear signal that the American emissaries are under no illusion. One day after meeting Iranian representatives in Oman, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff traveled to the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Arabian Sea, alongside the commander of U.S. Central Command. The symbolism was deliberate. Diplomacy is being pursued—but from a position of strength. Tehran was offered a chance, not an indulgence. The message was clear: patience is conditional, and time is not unlimited.
Israel understands this reality with clarity. Jerusalem’s concern is not rooted in impatience, but in experience. For Israel, the danger is not diplomacy itself, but diplomacy that constrains deterrence while legitimizing deception.
Iran’s conduct at the negotiating table reinforces these concerns. Tehran insists on its asserted “right to enrich uranium,” categorically refuses to discuss its missile arsenal, and rejects any permanent abandonment of its nuclear program. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei views nuclear capability as a pillar of regime survival. At most, Iran would accept a temporary suspension—not dismantlement.
The regional risks are substantial. Continued enrichment and missile development heighten the risk of escalation across an already fragile Middle East. Iran has combined diplomatic maneuvering with provocation—targeting maritime traffic, signaling threats toward U.S. forces, and continuing large-scale financial support for its regional proxies even as the Iranian population faces deepening hardship. This is not de-escalation. It is calibrated defiance.
Iran’s leadership continues to avoid direct engagement at the highest level, relying on intermediaries while seeking arrangements that resemble past frameworks—agreements that delayed confrontation without addressing its cause.
Taken together, these developments reveal a regime that remains tactical, defiant, and fundamentally unchanged. The conclusion must be stated plainly. The Iranian regime negotiates to survive. The American negotiators are testing whether transformation remains possible. This asymmetry defines the impasse.
Peace and prosperity for the Iranian people are legitimate and necessary goals. They are also the very reason diplomacy must be pursued seriously and responsibly. Until then, diplomacy must be conducted with clarity and resolve—grounded in realism about the regime, and guided by a genuine desire to spare the Iranian people the cost of yet another war.
Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff will Likely play historic roles. But history suggests a hard truth: meaningful peace with Iran will come not before a fundamental change in the nature of power itself, but as a consequence of it.
