For years, Washington addressed Tehran through pressure. Sanctions were tightened layer upon layer. Naval deployments in the Gulf were amplified. Political rhetoric framed Iran as a state that would eventually yield under economic suffocation. The assumption was that sustained coercion would fracture internal stability and compel compliance.

That expectation has not materialised.

The return to negotiations is not the product of generosity or strategic benevolence. It reflects the recognition that coercion, by itself, did not produce submission. The shift from maximum pressure to diplomatic engagement signals something more structural: the limits of imperial reflex in a world that is no longer unipolar.

The return to negotiations is not the product of generosity or strategic benevolence. It reflects the recognition that coercion, by itself, did not produce submission. The shift from maximum pressure to diplomatic engagement signals something more structural: the limits of imperial reflex in a world that is no longer unipolar.

The Limits of Economic Warfare When the United States withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action under Donald Trump, the calculation was clear. Economic strangulation would either collapse Iran’s internal cohesion or force it back to the table on terms defined by Washington.

Instead, Iran adapted. It expanded its nuclear leverage. It strengthened strategic partnerships beyond the Western orbit. It consolidated internal deterrence structures. Sanctions inflicted undeniable hardship, particularly on ordinary citizens, but they did not break state continuity. They did not trigger capitulation.

Economic warfare, when overused, produces adaptation. States under prolonged pressure search for alternatives — financial, diplomatic, and strategic. In doing so, they alter the very architecture that sanctions depend upon.

READ: Iran closes large parts of its airspace ahead of missile drill

Legitimacy and the Politics of Naming Western security discourse frequently reduces regional actors aligned with Iran to “proxies.” The term implies external manipulation and strips political agency. Yet movements such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Ansar Allah emerged from local histories........

© Middle East Monitor