Why Iran-US negotiations keep failing
Relations between the two countries are dominated by policy complexes shaped by a history of hostility.
Key points
- Only one US-Iran negotiation initiative, the June 18 Islamabad memorandum, was concluded, and it collapsed within days.
- The article says US distrust stems from the 1979 embassy siege and Iranian distrust from the 2018 JCPOA withdrawal.
- The dispute has shifted to the order of steps, with Washington and Tehran each demanding the other move first.
A political analyst writing for Al Jazeera argues that US-Iran negotiations keep failing because of a long-standing psychological syndrome built on two historical grievances. The article says several negotiation initiatives have been launched since the start of the war, but only the memorandum of understanding signed in Islamabad on June 18 was concluded, and it collapsed within days.
The analyst says the syndrome combines a US complex formed by the 1979 siege of the US embassy in Tehran and an Iranian complex formed by past US hostility, especially the 2018 withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. Each side, the article says, drafts proposals to protect itself from repeating its own historical experience rather than to meet the other halfway.
Origins of the two complexes
The article traces the rupture to August 1953, when US and British intelligence agencies helped overthrow Mohammad Mosaddegh's government after it nationalised the oil industry in 1951. It says Washington's decision to host the deposed Shah for medical treatment in October 1979 was read in Tehran as a prelude to a second coup, leading students to storm the US embassy on November 4 and hold 52 Americans for 444 days.
In the US, the article says, the siege created an informal rule that Iran must concede first and its concession must be verified before it receives anything. On the Iranian side, the complex peaked in May 2018 when Donald Trump withdrew from the JCPOA despite IAEA confirmation of compliance, followed two weeks later by Mike Pompeo's 12 demands, seven of which concerned Iran's regional behaviour. The article says the knot deepened in June 2025 when the US struck the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear facilities during the Twelve-Day War.
an American signature guarantees nothing
— the article, describing a conviction in Iranian consciousness
Sequencing stands in the way
The article says US initiatives, including a 15-point plan in March and a May draft by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, consistently put Iranian action before any US quid pro quo. Iranian proposals, such as a five-point response in late March and 14 points in May, demand binding guarantees and a nonaggression pledge including Israel before Iran acts.
The Islamabad memorandum came closest to a settlement because it addressed both sides' core concerns, but Tehran suspended its participation in the Geneva round over the absence of a ceasefire in Lebanon. By late September, informed sources said the dispute had shifted from substance to sequencing, with Washington seeking the Strait of Hormuz opened and enrichment frozen first, and Tehran seeking the naval blockade lifted first. The article says the substantive gap has narrowed but the trust gap has not, and that breaking the deadlock would require a third party able to guarantee both action and reciprocal action.
