The Islamic Republic of Iran is structurally unable to fully honor agreements that significantly reduce confrontation with the United States, because its political identity and legitimacy are built on permanent ideological opposition (“Death to America”).

Signing agreements provides short-term relief (economic or military), but full implementation threatens the regime’s core pillars — the Revolutionary Guards, intelligence apparatus, and narrative that portrays dissent as foreign conspiracy.

The post-Khamenei leadership transition makes compliance even harder, as a new leader relies more heavily on hardline ideological institutions that view rapprochement with Washington as an existential risk, perpetuating a predictable cycle of signing, partial implementation, violations, and renewed confrontation.

Washington keeps asking why Tehran repeatedly violates the agreements it signs. Most explanations focus on bad faith, deception, or negotiating tactics. Those factors certainly exist, but they do not answer the more important question.

The real issue is whether the Islamic Republic is structurally capable of fully honoring any agreement that fundamentally reduces its confrontation with the United States.

American policymakers often analyze Iran as they would any conventional state—one that pursues national interests through a rational calculation of costs and benefits. But the Islamic Republic has never functioned as a conventional nation-state alone. It is an ideological regime whose survival depends on preserving a particular political identity.

This distinction explains why there is a profound difference between signing an agreement and implementing it.

Signing an agreement can ease economic pressure, reduce immediate military risks, and buy valuable time.........

© Eurasia Review