Jalal Khosh-Chehre, the editorial chief of Borna News Agency wrote: The reality of time pressure is undeniable. All sides agree on it. The difference lies in perception: the West frames time as a “threat,” while Tehran likens it to a slippery fish that will slip away if opportunities are not seized. Thus, while the brevity of time is a shared understanding, doubts persist in Tehran about the true intentions of the West — namely Washington, the European troika, and the IAEA — leaving the country in a limbo between choosing dialogue or avoiding it altogether.
For various reasons beyond the scope of this article, the West has gradually developed shared demands toward Tehran. Lost opportunities have contributed to the emergence of an informal alignment between Washington, Europe, and the IAEA. The IAEA’s inclusion in this alignment stems from its clear shift away from its “technical and expert” mandate, now exhibiting a more political approach to Iran’s nuclear program.
A critical and often-overlooked factor deepening this alignment is the seemingly cautious posture of Moscow and Beijing amid the current tensions. The passive stance of Russia and China in the nuclear and geopolitical disputes between Tehran and the West — especially after the recent 12-day war — serves as a stark reminder for Tehran to reassess its expectations from these “Eastern powers.” Both capitals, like other global actors, assess developments through the lens of their own national interests. As such, their positions remain open to interpretation. What they have consistently emphasized is that, at best, Tehran is a “trade and political partner,” not an “ally” to be defended with direct action when needed.
The key question now is whether Tehran’s demonstrated flexibility reflects a deliberate choice in how to engineer future relations with the West. Is this flexibility the product of coherent policymaking within the governing system, or simply a diversity of public statements without a unified final position? If the chosen path is dialogue aimed at reaching a “balance point” in disputes bordering on confrontation with the Western bloc, then it is essential to avoid rhetoric that signals no intention to reach an agreement, and instead adopt conduct that clearly conveys a willingness to negotiate.
If Tehran prioritizes dialogue, it must confront its doubts realistically. In politics, doubts over intentions are constant; as the saying goes, if politicians truly knew each other’s intentions, no agreements would ever be reached. The world of politics and diplomacy is defined by mutual suspicion, which explains the impermanence of friendships and rivalries on the global stage. Therefore, if Tehran commits to dialogue, it must also accept its requirements. Success lies in the skill of negotiators and the concessions each side can leverage. For Tehran, the greatest and most important bargaining asset is national unity and cohesion. Any vulnerability in this regard — despite all doubts about Western intentions — would weaken its hand at the negotiating table.
Time has never been more critical. Tehran must decide, despite signs of flexibility, whether to resolve its doubts and commit to dialogue, mastering the art of reaching balance amid heightened tensions — or to embrace confrontation without softening its positions.
End Article