Nuclear Negotiations Between Iran and the West Have Resumed, But Does History Threaten to Repeat? We Must Draw from the Past's Lessons
Recently, Oman’s foreign minister announced that the Islamic Republic may be permitted to continue uranium enrichment at 3.67%.
Meanwhile, The New York Times reports that Iran has offered to allow the United States and other nations to monitor its nuclear enrichment.
On the surface, this may seem like a breakthrough.
But is this truly a step toward peace — or simply a familiar trap in a dangerous game?
The world must ask itself: can a regime that has already violated past agreements be trusted now? Under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, or Iran Nuclear Deal), Iran pledged to limit enrichment to 3.67%.
In practice, the regime shattered that promise, enriching uranium up to 60% — a level dangerously close to weapons-grade.
This nuclear progress became a tool of blackmail, enabling Iran to extract concessions from the global community while continuing its destabilizing activities.
Following the July 14, 2015, deal, Iran regained access to $150 billion in frozen assets.
But those funds didn’t reach the Iranian people.
Instead of easing widespread poverty, the regime used the windfall to fuel regional proxy wars. By 2017, economic frustration boiled over into mass protests.
Iranians, robbed of hope, took to the streets in a movement driven by poverty and injustice.
Meanwhile, Tehran’s military support for armed groups spread chaos across the Mideast.
From Iraq and Syria to Lebanon and Yemen, Iran’s fingerprints were visible in the rise of proxy militias.
The events of Oct. 7, 2023, leading to the Gaza war, and leaving tens of thousands dead or wounded — is one of the bitterest consequences of this policy.
Today, Iran's return to the negotiating table should not be mistaken for moderation.
It's not the result of reform, but a reflection of fear of falling.
The regime fears a direct military clash with the United States, particularly targeted strikes on its nuclear infrastructure.
According to sources in Tehran, high-ranking officials, including IRGC commanders, warned Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei that such a conflict could unravel the regime entirely — triggering another uprising like the one in 2022.
In fact, the regime's fragility is clear.
In Iran’s most recent presidential election, only 8% of eligible voters — many coerced or disillusioned — cast ballots.
Inflation is out of control, and more than 80% of the population lives below the poverty line. These represent conditions ripe for revolt.
What sets this moment apart is the presence of a vast internal resistance.
Thousands of organized units aligned with the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) operate across the country.
They are poised to turn even small acts of protest into coordinated nationwide movements. The regime knows this — and it terrifies them.
It's therefore unsurprising that Iran may temporarily scale back its nuclear ambitions — not out of goodwill, but to survive.
And just like in 2015, it is preserving its full nuclear infrastructure, ready to restart weapons development if global conditions shift in its favor.
Let's Not Repeat 2015's Errors
Nearly 10 years ago, Western negotiators allowed the talks to be narrowly focused on the nuclear issue. Iran exploited this framework.
It gave the illusion of compliance while using the resulting financial and diplomatic gains to unleash further regional aggression.
The bitter result? Proxy wars multiplied, Iran’s influence expanded, and innocent lives were lost by the tens of thousands.
Yet, the world continues to play by Tehran’s rules — focusing on centrifuges, while ignoring the rockets, militias, and assassins it funds regionally.
The greatest mistake was to assume that Iran’s nuclear program was the only threat.
In truth, its regional expansionism, ideological warfare, and support for terrorism have done far greater and more lasting harm.
Haven't we learned enough from the Gaza war yet?
The Regime’s Survival Doctrine
The Islamic Republic is not a normal state. It's a theocratic regime born of medieval dogma, imposed on the 21st century through historical accident.
It survives through repression at home and aggression abroad.
For over three decades, its deterrent strategy (read warmongering policy) has been based on three pillars:
- A nuclear weapons program.
- The creation and support of proxy forces.
- The development of long-range ballistic missiles.
These pillars form a single, integrated system, driven by hatred and confrontation.
Slogans like "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" aren’t rhetorical — they are the ideological fuel for endless cycles of conflicts and killings.
Is There a Path Forward?
If the global community is serious about peace, it must confront the entire set of strategies — not and not just of the nuclear sort.
Any sustainable agreement must include:
- A complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear weapons infrastructure.
- An end to support for proxy militias.
- A halt to ballistic missile development.
- Verifiable removal of Iran’s military presence from regional conflicts.
Without these guarantees, any deal will only buy time for the next round of war.
Let's not be fooled again.
The cost of failure will not only be measured in dollars or diplomatic capital — but in lives.
Hamid Enayat is based in Paris and is a noted expert on Iran. He has written extensively on issues pertinent to Iran and the Mideast region. Read Dr. Hamid Enyat's Reports — More Here.