For nearly two decades, one question has haunted Iran-US diplomacy: Who should move first?
asserted
Who → haunt → diplomacy
Since the early 2000s, Washington and Tehran have repeatedly faced the same dilemma: Should Iran limit its nuclear activities before receiving economic relief, or should the United States ease pressure before expecting Iranian concessions?
asserted
States → face → concessions
Yet the latest diplomatic crisis suggests that these may no longer be the right questions.
uncertain
these → suggest → ?
The real challenge is not who moves first.
asserted
who → move → ?
It is whether both sides can move together.
asserted
sides → move → ?
This question has become urgent again amid the latest dispute over the Strait of Hormuz.
asserted
question → become → Hormuz
Tehran has proposed reopening the waterway if Washington meets a series of conditions, including lifting the naval blockade, easing sanctions and providing guarantees against renewed attacks.
asserted
Washington → propose → attacks
Tehran argues that negotiations cannot begin under conditions of pressure and confrontation.
asserted
negotiations → argue → pressure
Washington, however, insists that any renewed diplomatic process must address the nuclear issue from the beginning.
asserted
process → insist → beginning
This disagreement represents the central problem of the current negotiations: both sides are demanding confidence-building measures before taking the first step.
asserted
sides → represent → step
History shows that this dilemma has been addressed before through mechanisms based on reciprocal action.
asserted
dilemma → show → action
The 2013 Joint Plan of Action between Iran and the P5+1 – the five permanent United Nations Security Council members and Germany – was built around an interim approach in which both sides accepted limited and reversible measures.
asserted
sides → build → measures
Iran agreed to restrictions on parts of its nuclear programme, including limits on enrichment levels and enhanced monitoring, while the US and its partners provided limited sanctions relief.
asserted
US → agree → relief
This approach later evolved into the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
asserted
approach → evolve → Action
The agreement established strict limits on Iran’s uranium enrichment, with a 3.67 percent cap, while expanding International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitoring and providing sanctions relief in exchange for nuclear restrictions.
asserted
agreement → establish → restrictions
The implementation of the JCPOA followed a phased process.
asserted
implementation → follow → process
First came the agreement in July 2015, followed by Adoption Day in October, then Implementation Day in January 2016 after the IAEA verified Iran’s initial nuclear commitments.
asserted
IAEA → come → commitments
Only after verification did major sanctions relief begin.
asserted
relief → begin → verification
The lesson from this experience is not that agreements based on sequencing always fail.
asserted
agreements → base → sequencing
When the US withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 and restored sanctions, Iran concluded that technical commitments alone were insufficient.
asserted
commitments → withdraw → sanctions
From the Iranian perspective, the central problem became the absence of guarantees that a future agreement would survive political changes in Washington.
asserted
agreement → become → Washington
The US, however, has its own concerns.
asserted
US → have → concerns
US policymakers argue that sanctions relief must be linked to verifiable Iranian commitments, especially regarding the nuclear programme.
asserted
relief → argue → programme
They fear that providing economic benefits too early could reduce Washington’s leverage.
uncertain
providing → fear → leverage
This is the strongest argument against synchronised steps: critics argue that deep mistrust makes simultaneous implementation unrealistic.
asserted
implementation → argue → steps
They warn that Iran could use economic relief to rebuild its capabilities, while Washington worries that it could lose its negotiating advantage.
uncertain
it → warn → advantage
But the answer is not to abandon reciprocity.
asserted
answer → abandon → reciprocity
The answer is to design stronger verification mechanisms.
asserted
answer → design → mechanisms
A workable model would not rely on trust alone.
asserted
model → rely → trust
It would rely on verification.
asserted
It → rely → verification
For example, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz could be linked to a phased easing of restrictions, with each stage monitored by a third party.
uncertain
stage → link → party
Qatar, given its role as a mediator, could help facilitate communication, while technical nuclear issues could remain under international verification through the IAEA.
uncertain
issues → give → IAEA
The principle would be simple: every Iranian action would have a clearly defined US response, and every US step would have a measurable Iranian obligation.
asserted
step → have → obligation
This approach is more realistic than demanding unilateral concessions because it gives both governments political space at home.
asserted
it → demand → home
Neither side would appear to be surrendering under pressure; both could argue that they are receiving something in return.
uncertain
they → appear → return
Recent diplomacy has already moved partially in this direction.
asserted
diplomacy → move → direction
The June memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran, supported by Qatar and other mediators, attempted to create mechanisms for reducing tensions, including issues related to military operations and freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.
asserted
memorandum → support → Hormuz
Later discussions included technical committees and monitoring mechanisms designed to manage implementation.
asserted
discussions → include → implementation
Qatar’s mediation has also become increasingly significant.
asserted
mediation → become → ?
Doha has attempted to bridge the gap between Tehran’s demand for confidence-building measures before negotiations and Washington’s insistence that nuclear issues remain central.
asserted
issues → attempt → negotiations
…and 11 more, not listed.
The Aporia
