Tehran's dangerous illusion of control over U.S. negotiations could trigger a devastating miscalculation with irreversible consequences
Iran's leadership is operating under a perilously flawed set of assumptions about the nature of its standoff with Washington — misreading American intentions, overestimating its own leverage, and clinging to an outdated diplomatic playbook that no longer applies to the volatile reality unfolding around it. The warning signs are flashing red, yet decision-makers in Tehran appear unable — or unwilling — to see them.
In a deeply alarming analysis published by Ali Hashem for Foreign Affairs, the research affiliate at the Centre for Islamic and West Asian Studies at Royal Holloway, University of London, paints a chilling portrait of a regime trapped in institutional inertia — one that has repeatedly failed to accurately assess the strategic landscape and now faces the gravest consequences yet for that failure. Hashem, who has had direct access to Iranian officials, regional diplomats, and mediators involved in the current diplomatic track, warns that a catastrophic collision may be approaching far faster than Tehran comprehends.
A Pattern of Deadly Miscalculation
The article traces Iran's dangerous pattern of misreading pivotal moments back to February 2022, when a nuclear agreement with the United States was reportedly just hours from being announced. Hashem, who was in Vienna at the time, recounts how European Union coordinators and members of the Iranian delegation themselves confirmed the deal was imminent. Then Russia invaded Ukraine — and Tehran made a fateful bet.
Rather than salvaging the agreement, Iranian officials convinced themselves that the war would fracture Western unity and strengthen Iran's hand. The phrase "Winter is coming," borrowed from Game of Thrones, circulated among senior figures. They predicted Europe would buckle under an energy crisis, and Iran would negotiate from a position of strength.
The bet failed spectacularly. Winter came and went. European unity held. And Iran lost what may have been its last viable opportunity to ease sanctions under a sympathetic Biden administration.
What is most alarming is that this catastrophic misjudgment was not an anomaly — it was, as Hashem argues, a recurring pattern that has now resurfaced at a far more perilous juncture.
A "Velocity Gap" That Could Ignite War
Regional diplomats involved in current mediation efforts have sounded alarms about what one described as a growing "velocity gap" between Tehran's understanding of the negotiations and the way Washington is actually conducting them. According to Hashem's reporting, regional intervention was the only reason war had not already erupted weeks earlier.
The diplomat's warning was blunt and terrifying in its clarity: "This is not a traditional American administration operating according to familiar institutional rhythms. Trump is looking for quick, visible victories. Patience is not his strategic instinct."
If Tehran believes it can drag out talks until the U.S. midterm elections in order to gain leverage, the diplomat warned, it would be making a serious and potentially fatal miscalculation. Washington's tolerance for delay may expire long before any timeline Iranian officials consider realistic.
The June 2025 War: A Wake-Up Call Tehran Refuses to Hear
Perhaps the most harrowing section of Hashem's analysis concerns the war that erupted last June — a conflict that should have shattered every remaining illusion in Tehran but apparently has not.
On the eve of Israel's strikes, Iranian officials had assessed — based on diplomatic signals — that Israel would not attack before the sixth round of negotiations in Muscat concluded. Military planners believed any strike would target nuclear facilities, not the capital itself.
They were devastatingly wrong.
Tehran awoke before dawn to coordinated airstrikes and internal drone operations that eliminated much of the country's senior military leadership. The war lasted 12 days. President Trump authorized direct U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities toward its conclusion. Most staggeringly, Iranian officials later acknowledged that enriched uranium at 60 percent had not been relocated from nuclear sites beforehand. Tehran had simply not anticipated American entry into the conflict.
The war ended with a cease-fire following what Tehran described as a largely symbolic strike on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. But the damage was done: key infrastructure was disabled, enrichment capacity was reduced to effectively zero, and Iran's bargaining leverage — both nuclear and regional — was gutted.
And yet, Tehran continues to behave as though none of this happened.
Trapped in the 2015 Model
A former Iranian official offered Hashem a candid and deeply troubling explanation. "The establishment here is stuck with the 2015 model," he said. "But the way the stars aligned in 2015 was unprecedented. It cannot be repeated."
The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action emerged from a rare convergence of political willingness in Washington, strategic flexibility in Tehran, and an international environment favorable to compromise. None of those conditions exist today. Washington now demands that ballistic missiles and regional activity be addressed alongside nuclear restrictions — demands that strike at the very core of Iran's defensive doctrine.
Yet Iranian negotiators, even after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's meetings with Trump in Washington, have kept discussions in Muscat and Doha confined largely to the nuclear file alone. They appear unconvinced that Trump would sustain a conflict capable of destabilizing the entire region.
The Geopolitical Ground Has Collapsed Beneath Tehran's Feet
The strategic environment that once underpinned Iran's deterrence doctrine has been obliterated. Syria has fallen entirely out of Iran's orbit following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad's government. Hezbollah and Hamas lost much of their operational capacity during the 2023-2024 war with Israel. Iraq is actively distancing itself from regional confrontation.
The Middle East that shaped Iran's strategic posture no longer exists. Yet Iran continues to negotiate as though it does — a delusion that grows more dangerous by the day.
Hashem's analysis culminates in a warning that should alarm every observer of the crisis: both Washington and Tehran are engaged in a classic game of brinkmanship, each assuming the other side will blink first.
"The real danger of playing chicken isn't about what they meant to do," Hashem writes. "It's about whether they wait too long to swerve. Sometimes, the clock runs out before 'leverage' has a chance to work."
Inside Iran, the specter of war is discussed through an unusually revealing lens. Some segments of society remain ideologically committed, viewing any confrontation as part of a sacred defensive mission. Others prioritize stability, fearing national fragmentation more than authoritarian continuity. And a smaller but increasingly vocal group — particularly among younger Iranians — views war itself as a potential rupture that could end decades of decline, naively believing external strikes might target institutions rather than civilians.
"Clearly, they are too young to have witnessed the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and its aftermath," Hashem notes grimly.
A Collision Course with No Off-Ramp in Sight
The situation as it stands is deeply alarming. Washington continues to escalate pressure. Tehran remains convinced that negotiations will ultimately resolve the crisis. U.S. demands now challenge Iran's ballistic missile program — a red line that, if accepted, would leave the country strategically exposed, and if rejected, risks open confrontation.
Confidence, Hashem argues, may paradoxically be Iran's greatest vulnerability. The events of June 2025 transformed what once seemed unthinkable into a plausible strategic option for Washington and its allies. Sustained pressure may aim less at regime change than at reshaping Iran's trajectory through exhaustion and internal strain.
"Wars rarely begin because they are desired," Hashem concludes, "but rather because each side believes it understands the other too well."
Tehran remains convinced that the negotiating table will produce a solution. Perhaps it will. But with each passing day, the margin for error narrows, the assumptions grow more detached from reality, and the consequences of miscalculation grow more catastrophic.
The clock is ticking. And Iran, by all accounts, cannot hear it.