More than five months into the ongoing US-Israel conflict with Iran, prospects for a resolution remain uncertain. Earlier this week, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that there are currently no direct negotiations with the United States. Meanwhile, Tehran continues to issue hostile rhetoric and calls for revenge.

Some Western commentators have argued that Iran's anti-American ideology prevents it from reaching a deal. However, an analysis of Iran’s constitution and historical actions suggests otherwise. The Islamic Republic is not governed solely by ideology but by pragmatic calculations centered on regime survival.

Historical precedents illustrate this pragmatism. In January 1988, Iranian Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini resolved an internal dispute by asserting that the Islamic government supersedes all other Islamic rulings. Later that year, in July 1988, Khomeini accepted a ceasefire with Iraq, despite publicly stating it was more lethal to him than poison. During the Iran-Iraq war, Tehran accepted American weapons routed through Israeli channels and engaged in secret dealings with Washington, known as the Iran-Contra affair.

Following the 9/11 attacks and the US invasion of Afghanistan, Iranian and American diplomats cooperated at the Bonn conference to help shape the post-Taliban government.

Given this history, the current Iranian regime would likely not hesitate to reach a settlement with the US and even Israel if it aligns with its primary goal of regime survival.

Sources