A woman walks next to a banner with a picture of Iran’s new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei in Tehran, Iran, May 8, 2026. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS

There is an adage that perfectly captures the asymmetrical nature of the geopolitical contest between the United States and Iran: America often plays checkers while Iran plays chess.

The United States tends to rely on overwhelming power, economic pressure, and short-term tactical victories. Iran, by contrast, thinks in decades. It layers military, political, religious, and psychological strategies on top of one another, patiently advancing long-term objectives while waiting for Western governments to change, elections to intervene, and public attention to drift elsewhere.

To understand the current negotiations, one must recognize that the two sides are often operating from entirely different frameworks.

President Trump approaches international relations much as he approaches business negotiations. He sees disputes as transactions to be managed, incentives to be balanced, and deals to be struck. In his worldview, most conflicts can be resolved through leverage, pressure, concessions, and compromise. Every problem has a price.

Iran’s rulers see the world through a vastly different lens.

The Islamic Republic is not merely a nation-state pursuing conventional national interests. It is a revolutionary regime driven by a theological and ideological mission. Its leaders speak the language of diplomacy when it serves their interests, but their ultimate objectives are rooted in religious doctrine, revolutionary zeal, and a decades-long commitment to expanding their Islamist influence throughout the region.

To assume that Tehran evaluates risk and reward solely through a Western business or diplomatic framework is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the regime.

Complicating matters further, Iran has repeatedly demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of political psychology. One of its most effective tactics has been to exploit divisions among its adversaries. By portraying Trump as a leader being manipulated by Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu, Tehran struck at something deeply personal. No politician whose public image is built on strength, independence, and dominance wants to be portrayed as someone else’s puppet.

Iran’s rulers understand better than most the power of ego, prestige, saving face, and public perception. For more than four decades, the regime has cultivated these tools not as political accessories but as instruments of statecraft. Its leaders know that psychological pressure can often achieve what military force cannot. They understand how to exploit rivalries, sow doubt among allies, and manipulate the ambitions of adversaries.

That is why the emerging agreement is so troubling.

According to reports, the arrangement would extend a ceasefire, reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and provide a framework for additional discussions regarding Iran’s nuclear program. What it does not do is require the immediate, verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

In other words, the central issue remains unresolved.

The world has seen this movie before. Iran agrees to talk. The West celebrates diplomacy. Deadlines are extended. Inspections are negotiated. Technical disputes are deferred. New rounds of discussions are scheduled. Time passes. Iranian nuclear knowledge advances. Centrifuges continue spinning. The regime survives to negotiate another day.

The agreement appears less like a solution than another exercise in strategic postponement.

Supporters will argue that diplomacy keeps the door open and avoids immediate conflict. Perhaps. But diplomacy that merely delays a problem without solving it is not a victory. And Iran will get hundreds of billions of dollars to fund its nefarious activities during the process.

The fundamental question has never been whether Iran signs another document. The question is whether Iran is prevented from obtaining the capability to build a nuclear weapon.

If the answer remains uncertain after the agreement is signed, then the agreement has failed its most important test.

History teaches that governments change. Policies change. Priorities change.

Iran understands this. That is why it thinks in decades.

Iran is, without question, in a better position than it was on February 27. The only negative change was the destruction of some of its military assets, but those will all be rebuilt with the slush fund Iran is getting.

The challenge for the West is to recognize that it is negotiating not merely with a conventional government pursuing ordinary national interests, but with a revolutionary regime that combines ideological zeal, strategic patience, and sophisticated psychological manipulation. Misunderstanding that reality has repeatedly led policymakers to misread Tehran’s intentions.

The cost of doing so again may not simply be another failed agreement. It could be the eventual emergence of a nuclear-capable Iran.

At some point, the objective must cease being the management of the Iranian nuclear problem and become its elimination. Anything less risks becoming another chapter in a decades-long pattern of delay, illusion, and self-deception.

Since retiring from IBM, Steve Wenick has served as a freelance book reviewer for HarperCollins Publishing and Simon & Schuster. His reviews and articles have appeared in The Jerusalem Post, The Algemeiner, Times of Israel, Philadelphia Inquirer, Attitudes Magazine, and The Jewish Voice of Southern New Jersey.