Iranian 'diplomacy' is a complete scam.
What the Islamic Republic calls "diplomacy" is actually a calculated strategy of delay, deception, and escalation designed to advance power while the West debates process.
Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.
You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.
Every so often, the same political theater repeats itself: Iranian officials signal “openness,” Western diplomats rush to microphones, headlines announce a “window for diplomacy,” and somewhere in the background, centrifuges keep spinning.
This week’s news fits the pattern perfectly. U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi are reportedly planning to meet in Istanbul on Friday to discuss a possible nuclear deal. Iranian media claims President Masoud Pezeshkian has ordered talks with Washington after President Donald Trump said he was hopeful for an agreement that could avert military action against the Islamic Republic. On cue, Iran insists — yet again — that it is not seeking nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, Russia is preparing contingency plans to evacuate its staff from Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant if necessary. Hundreds of Russian workers remain embedded in Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. More reactors are being built. And the International Atomic Energy Agency says it still cannot confirm the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.
This is not diplomacy. It is misdirection.
Real diplomacy requires transparency, reciprocity, and consequences for violations. It requires that agreements clarify facts rather than obscure them, that commitments are verifiable rather than symbolic, and that cheating carries a cost. Iran offers none of this. What Tehran calls diplomacy is not negotiation between equals, but delay dressed up as dialogue — an effort to freeze its adversaries politically while it advances materially.
Iranian “diplomacy” has never been about compromise. It has always been about time. Talks are launched when pressure mounts. Concessions are hinted at when sanctions bite. Smiles appear precisely when inspectors get close. The goal is simple: Slow the West down long enough to move the nuclear program just a little further forward, one enrichment level, one facility, one hardened site at a time.
The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (also known as the “Iranian Nuclear Deal”) is often held up as proof that diplomacy can work. In reality, it demonstrated the opposite. Russia removed large quantities of Iran’s enriched uranium in December 2015 to keep Tehran below the limits set by the agreement. And yet, within years, Iran resumed higher-level enrichment, installed advanced centrifuges, and obstructed inspectors. If the “Iranian Nuclear Deal” was meant to permanently alter Iranian behavior, it failed. What it did succeed in doing was buying time — for Iran.
The persistent belief that Iranian elections or leadership changes alter this trajectory is another convenient illusion. President Pezeshkian is being marketed as a pragmatic reformist, just as his predecessors were. But Iran’s nuclear program is not run by presidents. It is controlled by the Supreme Leader, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and security institutions that are untouched by “elections.” Every Iranian president, reformist and hardliner alike, has presided over the same steady nuclear advance. The language changes. The centrifuges do not.
What makes the current diplomatic push especially hollow is that Iran’s strategy of deception is not speculative. It is admitted, documented, and ongoing. In 2012, Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, then head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, openly acknowledged that Iran provided false information to International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to protect its nuclear program. Inspectors, he explained, were deliberately misled — sometimes made to believe Iran was weaker than it was, other times stronger — depending on what best served Tehran’s interests. This was not a rogue comment. It was a candid admission of institutionalized deceit.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly identified man-made uranium particles at undeclared sites such as Varamin, Marivan, and Turquzabad — locations Iran never disclosed as nuclear facilities. When asked to explain their presence, Tehran stalled. When pressed, it sanitized sites, removing evidence before inspectors could verify what had occurred. Years later, Iran still has not provided credible explanations. Diplomacy under these conditions becomes farcical. One side refuses to acknowledge basic facts, while the other pretends discussion can substitute for disclosure.
Iran’s non-cooperation is not limited to the past. It is active policy. Since 2019, Tehran has systematically refused to answer the International Atomic Energy Agency’s questions regarding the potential military dimensions of its nuclear program. It has restricted access to monitoring equipment, denied inspectors full data, and, according to reports, blocked comprehensive monitoring for months at a time in 2025 alone. A safeguards regime without access is not verification; it is theater.
Even more alarming are reports that Iran obtained confidential International Atomic Energy Agency documents, allegedly stolen, and used them to craft cover stories for prohibited activities. In other words, Tehran did not merely deceive inspectors; it studied the inspection process itself in order to evade it more effectively. No state acting in good faith behaves this way.
When the International Atomic Energy Agency formally found Iran in non-compliance with its safeguards obligations in 2025, Tehran’s response was not cooperation or corrective action. It was escalation. Iranian officials threatened to construct new, more secure enrichment facilities — explicitly designed to be harder to monitor and harder to strike. This was not diplomacy; it was nuclear blackmail.
Iran’s defenders often retreat to semantics, arguing that while Iran enriches uranium, it has not yet made the political decision to build a bomb. This distinction is deliberately misleading. Modern nuclear strategy is not about dramatic declarations; it is about positioning. Iran is methodically building threshold capability—ensuring it can break out quickly while maintaining plausible deniability. This strategy forces the world into an impossible choice: accept a nuclear-capable Iran or act militarily under conditions of maximum risk.
Iran also routinely cites the Supreme Leader’s alleged religious “fatwa” against nuclear weapons as proof of peaceful intent. But this claim collapses under scrutiny. The fatwa is not codified law, has never been formally published in a binding legal framework, and has been inconsistently described over time. More importantly, Iran’s leadership has reversed religious rulings whenever political expediency demanded it. Religious rhetoric cannot erase physical realities: enrichment levels, missile development, weaponization research, and hardened facilities.
Nor is Iran’s playbook unique. It closely mirrors the strategy used by North Korea. Pyongyang negotiated repeatedly, froze programs temporarily, extracted aid and legitimacy, violated agreements, escalated, and ultimately crossed the nuclear threshold. The pattern is unmistakable: Iran is not improvising, it is following a proven model.
The nuclear file is only the most visible example of Iranian “diplomacy” as performance. Tehran negotiates prisoner swaps while taking new hostages. It signals restraint through proxies while rearming them. It participates in regional talks while directing militias across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Gaza, and the West Bank. When speaking to Western diplomats, Iranian officials emphasize moderation and pragmatism. When addressing domestic or regional audiences, the language shifts to resistance, martyrdom, and inevitability of confrontation. Diplomacy is not a constraint; it is a costume.
This charade carries real human costs. Iranian citizens pay the price as sanctions tighten and repression deepens, even as negotiations are used to keep the regime afloat. Protesters who risk their lives for change are betrayed when talks legitimize the very system that crushes them. Civilians across the Middle East are endangered by a regime seeking nuclear cover for its regional aggression.
And yet the scam persists not because it is convincing, but because many in the West want desperately to believe it. Diplomacy offers the illusion of control. It allows leaders to claim they are preventing war without confronting the reality that Iran’s nuclear capabilities have advanced under every diplomatic framework attempted so far. It delays hard decisions and disperses accountability until failure can always be blamed on the next round of talks.
However, the growing problem is not just Iran’s nuclear program. Just as alarming is Iran’s rapidly advancing missile arsenal, which Israeli security officials increasingly view as an existential threat. Jerusalem expects Washington to press Tehran to sharply reduce its missile stockpile, especially long-range systems capable of reaching far beyond Iran’s borders.1
Israel wants Iran to formally renounce the development of long-range missiles altogether. Tehran, however, is moving in the opposite direction, hardening its stance and refusing even to discuss its missile program. The same intransigence applies to Iran’s export of the so-called “Shiite revolution” (a euphemism for regional hegemony).
This brings the focus back to Steve Witkoff, whom Israeli leaders see as among those most resistant to a military strike on Iran. Just last week, in regard to the Gaza situation, an Israeli official said: “Witkoff has become a lobbyist for Qatari interests.”2 Unsurprisingly, Qatar is among the countries that have been working to arrange Witkoff’s meeting with the Iranians this Friday in Turkey.3
Back in Jerusalem, there is real concern that Witkoff could “fall into the trap” laid by Iran’s negotiating team. Ultimately, though, the question is not Witkoff; it’s Donald Trump. How far is the American president actually willing to go?
From Israel’s perspective, Trump may already be laying the groundwork for military action. By exhausting diplomatic avenues and publicly exposing Iranian obstinacy, he can argue that force became unavoidable. In the coming days, it will become clear whether the Islamic Republic understands how dramatically its position has deteriorated, or whether it will once again misread the moment, flex its muscles, and assume the West will blink.
On Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi spoke of seeking “a fair and equitable deal”4 with the United States. It is a familiar performance: language crafted for Western ears, uttered by a regime whose actions have long rendered its words meaningless.
“לפני המו”מ: הקווים האדומים שתציג ישראל לוויטקוף.” Ynet.
Ynet News
“U.S. tells Iran it is ready to meet and negotiate a deal.” Axios.
CNN
When you see how the Iranian regime slaughters its own people without hesitation, it's crystal clear that these villains will attack Israel as soon as they have nuclear weapons—after all, in their form of Islam, it's an honor to perish as martyrs together. Israel should therefore do everything in its power to free the Iranian people from their hostage-takers. Comparing with these fanatics—forget it.
Witcoff is too conflicted with business and financial interests in the region, all outside of Israel, to be a fair arbiter. Trump holds his friendships close, and Witcoff is clearly close to and trusted by Trump, who may also be conflicted through family business and financial interestrs in the region, all outside of Israel.