The Iranian regime’s core is still rooted in anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and systematically controlling and destabilizing the region. None of its defining pillars has changed. Any deal with such a system will not transform it — just offer it enough relief to allow it to rearm before returning with renewed strength.

Although U.S. and Israeli strikes in June 2025 significantly degraded Iran’s military capabilities, the nature of Iran’s regime itself — deeply hostile toward its neighbors, Western civilization, the United States, Israel, other Muslims, and even its own population — continues to guide its actions. As the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) executes more people and consolidates even greater power in the aftermath of its setbacks, it has become even more ruthless.

The regime – what is left of it — is not seeking peace. It is seeking continued rule, breathing room, and money. Economically strained and increasingly concerned about internal unrest, Iran’s leadership views negotiations merely as a tactical pause.

Any agreement that would allow Iran a multi-year “moratorium” on enriching uranium again would erase everything that President Donald J. Trump has so brilliantly and historically accomplished. Any “moratorium” is essentially no different from the catastrophic “sunset clauses” in President Barack Hussein Obama’s 2015 JCPOA “nuclear deal” – a short delay that will correctly be taken as a green light inviting Iran to resume enriching uranium for nuclear weapons.

Politically, such a policy would be devastating for Trump. He would immediately be seen as the negotiating partner who desperately wanted a deal — any deal — just to declare victory and announce that he had “won.” If there is a “moratorium” even for 100 years, it is Iran that will have won.

Equally, any agreement that would lift sanctions or allow oil revenues to flow again would provide the regime with precisely what it needs: time to recover, rebuild militarily, and resume brutalizing its citizens, its neighbors, the region, and the United States

As long as Iran’s foundational policies — rooted in anti-Americanism and hostility toward the West — remain intact, no deal has proven capable of transforming its conduct. On the contrary, previous deals have enabled the regime to strengthen its position, channel more funding and weapons to its proxy networks, and deepen its regional influence rather than moderate it.

The regime, in addition, understands political cycles in the United States. It can agree to terms temporarily — two or three years, if necessary — while quietly waiting for a shift in leadership in Washington. Once that shift occurs, it usually feels free to abandon commitments and resume its previous trajectory. Agreements are treated as tools of convenience, not binding obligations.

At the same time, the regime’s support for militant proxies remains intact, and its posture toward neighboring countries is aggressive and interventionist.

Inside Iran, there are still reports of repression, restrictions on internet access, and crackdowns on dissent, complete with torture, forced confessions, and executions (here, here, and here). Why would a government that brutalizes its own citizens treat anyone else any better?

The regime has also been successfully deploying “good cop-bad cop” tactics to buy time and keep the U.S. at bay. The so-called moderates signal conciliation, while hardliners resist. In reality, these factions operate within the same system and share the same ultimate objective: the survival of the regime. The differences are tactical, not ideological. Falling for this dynamic risks misreading the entire structure of power in Tehran.

Meanwhile, the Iranian regime’s core ideology — anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and hostility toward its own people as well as most others — remains unchanged. Its military capabilities may have been weakened, but its identity and intentions are intact. The regime is therefore likely to pursue agreements not as steps toward peace, but as temporary, stopgap measures to regain strength, continue enriching uranium, and outlast political pressures from the current U.S. leadership. In any deal, under these conditions, that risks repeating a familiar cycle, trust is misplaced, and the regime’s most valuable weapon is time.

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a political scientist, Harvard-educated analyst, and board member of Harvard International Review. He has authored several books on the U.S. foreign policy. He can be reached at dr.rafizadeh@post.harvard.edu