Iran has long mastered the art of protracted negotiations. Past experience shows that Tehran possesses strategic patience and a remarkable ability to buy time.

Before the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was finalized, negotiations stretched for nearly two years. Later, after returning to the White House in 2021, President Joe Biden spent months attempting to revive the same deal, only for talks to ultimately stall.

Today, President Donald Trump faces a two-week window to reach an agreement that could bring an end to the war. It is a short deadline when dealing with a system that excels at managing negotiations — a point Trump himself has acknowledged.

Analysts have already expressed skepticism about the possibility of concluding a deal in Islamabad within such a timeframe, given the wide gap between Washington’s 15-point proposal and Tehran’s counter 10-point plan.

But the more important question is not whether a deal can be reached — it is whether one should be reached quickly at all.

After nearly 40 days of war, a different strategic path presents itself. Rather than rushing toward a settlement, the United States should adopt the very tactic Iran has refined for decades: time itself.

Engaging in prolonged, open-ended negotiations — without resorting to renewed military pressure — may prove more effective than pursuing a rushed agreement.

Iran enters these talks with a clear objective: sanctions relief as a central goal, aimed at restoring economic balance to a system already under severe strain before the war. At the same time, the Islamic Republic does not approach negotiations purely through a cost-benefit framework. Ideological considerations continue to shape its decision-making.

For that reason, Tehran is unlikely to offer meaningful concessions that would fully satisfy Washington. The Iranian leadership has historically prioritized strategic and ideological imperatives, which helps explain its preference for complex and extended negotiation processes.

This is precisely where time becomes a strategic asset for the United States.

Maintaining sanctions throughout a prolonged negotiating phase would preserve pressure on the system, potentially recreating conditions that have previously driven domestic unrest — from the 2017 cost-of-living protests and the 2019 fuel demonstrations to more recent market-driven mobilizations in 2025.

This does not guarantee regime collapse. However, continued economic strain — particularly in a fragile post-war environment — could trigger renewed cycles of internal pressure, posing a significant challenge to the leadership.

In this context, time is not simply a feature of diplomacy; it is a tool of strategy.

Negotiations that move from one capital to another can serve as a mechanism for managing tensions without prematurely resolving them — especially at a moment when Iran is emerging from a costly war that has further damaged its already struggling economy, weakened parts of its military capacity, and disrupted elements of its leadership structure.

At the same time, this approach requires clear conditions.

Before entering a prolonged negotiating track, the United States should secure firm assurances on freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz — one of the world’s most critical energy arteries — in exchange for confidence-building measures such as a phased reduction of its military presence in the region.

While Iran seeks to use negotiations to stabilize its economic conditions and manage internal pressures, Washington can use the same timeframe to recalibrate leverage and allow internal dynamics within Iran to evolve.

The objective, then, should not be a quick deal, but a strategic use of time.

The bet is not on immediate collapse, but on gradual internal pressure — where negotiations are not the endpoint of the conflict, but one of its most effective instruments.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)