Iran’s Negotiation Tactics: Strategic Consistency in the Face of Renewed Pressure

Iran continues to approach diplomatic engagement through a negotiation model rooted in historical depth, strategic patience, and calibrated persistence. Amid renewed international pressure and revived sanctions, Tehran is adhering to a formula that prioritizes long-term positioning over short-term concessions. Iranian officials present this approach not as delay or defiance, but as a rational, experience-driven method of protecting national interests within an adversarial environment.

The Iranian framework for negotiation is prominently outlined in The Power of Negotiation, a book authored by senior diplomat Abbas Araghchi. The text articulates key principles of Iranian diplomatic thinking, positioning negotiation as a reflection of state capability and national resilience. Among the concepts presented is the so-called “bazaar style” of negotiation—a repetitive, endurance-based method rooted in historical practice. This style emphasizes persistence, tactical flexibility, and strategic delay, while remaining anchored to fixed ideological and political objectives.

Recent developments underscore the continued application of this approach. In a phone call with his Pakistani counterpart on 3 October 2025, Araghchi stated that Iran does not accept the expiration of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 on 18 October. His comments came amid signs that Western powers may seek to trigger the "snapback" mechanism, restoring multilateral sanctions. In response, former Foreign Minister and current MP Manouchehr Mottaki called for “retaliatory” measures, suggesting the possibility of Iranian escalation should sanctions return.

International momentum around reimposing pressure on Iran is accelerating. Turkey has joined the United States in applying sanctions, with Ankara freezing the assets of 20 individuals and 18 entities linked to Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, following a decree published in the official gazette. This coincided with new U.S. sanctions targeting 21 companies and 17 individuals involved in arms procurement networks.

In parallel, G7 foreign ministers have expressed full support for the reactivation of UN Security Council sanctions and called for immediate Iranian cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). A report attributed to The Washington Post indicates that Washington is urging direct negotiations, suspension of uranium enrichment, and limitations on missile development as preconditions to avoiding military escalation.

Tehran has publicly rejected both the pressure and the narrative behind it. Araghchi stated that the roles of Britain, France, and Germany in future nuclear talks would be marginal, criticizing the European approach as ineffective and outdated. He added that neither military threats nor sanction mechanisms have produced meaningful results. Instead, he reaffirmed Iran’s commitment to a negotiated solution—on Iran’s terms.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian reinforced this stance in recent statements, dismissing accusations of nuclear weaponization as unfounded. He insisted that the nuclear program is peaceful, operating within international frameworks, and aimed solely at energy generation and research.

European analysts have raised questions about the efficacy of current diplomatic strategies. A report from the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) last week described the EU’s move to activate the snapback mechanism as evidence of its limited influence. The report attributed Iran’s rejection of European proposals to domestic political dynamics, including the weakening of moderate factions within the Iranian leadership. A separate assessment by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) observed that the current sanctions architecture is increasingly targeting military and security sectors, rather than economic infrastructure.

In this context, Iran is positioning itself not in outright rejection of negotiation, but in favor of a process conducted within what it sees as a sovereign framework. The government continues to frame its diplomacy as a projection of power, not vulnerability—signaling that any return to comprehensive talks will be on strategic, not reactive, grounds.