Agreements Favor Iran

An international politics discourse analyzing how various negotiations and agreements surrounding Iran structurally conclude in Iran's favor, and the background thereof.

Agreements Favor Iran

Overview

"Agreements favor Iran" is an analytical proposition that international negotiations surrounding Iran, especially nuclear negotiations and regional conflict mediation processes, structurally deliver more substantive benefits to the Iranian side. This perspective holds that Iran's time-buying strategy at the negotiating table, the asymmetric reward structure of sanctions relief, and loopholes in verification and implementation mechanisms combine to ultimately strengthen Iran's bargaining power and geopolitical position. It has mainly been raised among skeptics in the U.S., Israeli, and Gulf oil-producing states camp, as well as many security analysts.

Main Points

Background: Why the Diagnosis "Favorable to Iran" Arises

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has endured a long period of sanctions and has used negotiations as a core tool of survival strategy. There is an asymmetry: while the West finds it difficult to bear the costs of military options and has major interests in oil prices and regional stability, Iran can obtain the clear reward of sanctions relief. In addition, as Iran's nuclear program functions simultaneously as a "negotiating card" and a "deterrent," a structure is created in which the negotiation itself increases Iran's leverage.

JCPOA (2015) Case

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) concluded in 2015 is frequently cited as a representative case. The key issues are as follows.

Immediacy of sanctions relief: Iran gained immediate economic benefits, such as the resumption of oil exports and the release of frozen assets, whereas the West's restoration of sanctions (snapback) had to go through a political process, making actual invocation difficult.
Time limits on verification: The "sunset clause," under which restrictions on some nuclear activities expire after 10–15 years, was criticized for resulting in recognition of Iran's nuclear potential in the long term.
Exclusion of missiles and regional influence: Ballistic missile development and support for proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and militias in Iraq and Syria were outside the scope of the agreement, allowing Iran to reinvest resources secured through sanctions relief into expanding regional influence.

For this reason, even those who advocate the JCPOA have called it the "best of bad agreements," and there is a widespread assessment that the negotiation outcome was relatively favorable to Iran.

Structural Factors

1. Time bias: Iran employs a strategy of "incremental pressure," prolonging negotiations and raising uranium enrichment levels to increase its bargaining power.

2. Verification costs: The West bears the costs of IAEA inspections and implementation monitoring, but restoring substantive sanctions upon detection of violations requires political consensus.

3. Multipolarized negotiating table: The involvement of Russian and Chinese interests constrains unilateral Western pressure tools.

4. Regional proxy war structure: Iran's strategy of maintaining influence through proxies while avoiding direct conflict also works to its advantage at the negotiating table.

Counterarguments and Limitations

There are, of course, views opposing this diagnosis. There is the logic that an agreement subordinates Iran's economy to the West and weakens the regime in the long run, or the deterrence logic that military options could become reality if negotiations break down. In addition, Iran's internal economic hardship, collapsing currency value, and emigration of young people limit the scope of application of the proposition that "an agreement favors Iran."

Latest Trends

Entering 2024–2025, this proposition is drawing attention again.

JCPOA effectively dead: After the first Trump administration's withdrawal, negotiations fell into deadlock, and Iran raised enrichment to 60%, approaching the status of a de facto nuclear threshold state.
Regional tensions and mediation diplomacy: In the Israel-Hamas war and confrontations with Hezbollah and the Houthis, Qatar and Oman stepped forward as mediators, and analyses have emerged that Iran's influence was reaffirmed in ceasefire and exchange agreements.
Closer alignment with Russia and China: Iran is pursuing entry into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and BRICS, strengthening multilateral diplomacy that reduces the effectiveness of Western sanctions.
Change in the agreement frame: As comprehensive agreements at the level of "reorganization of the regional security architecture" are discussed beyond simple sanctions relief, the observation is spreading that as the negotiating agenda grows, Iran's bargaining leverage grows along with it.

As a result, the proposition that "an agreement favors Iran" has become established as an expression that concisely shows the structural dilemma of the Iran issue—entangled with sanctions, negotiations, and deterrence—beyond the victory or defeat of any particular negotiation.