Senior political sources say the current war, still ongoing, confirms that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has the final say in Iran’s domestic and foreign affairs.
According to these sources, the IRGC has become the dominant force in the country, wielding decisive power and steadily expanding its influence.
What began as a military organization has evolved into the central actor shaping Iranian politics, pushing the traditional political establishment to the margins.
Talks between the United States and Iran are set to resume this week in Islamabad. President Trump aims to reach an agreement before his visit to China on the 14th and his meeting with President Xi Jinping.
Vice President J.D. Vance is expected to head the American negotiating delegation.
However, senior Israeli officials express deep skepticism, given the significant gaps between the two sides’ positions.
Seeking an agreement before Trump’s China trip signals to the Iranians that the president is under pressure to arrive in Beijing with an achievement, which, according to political sources, weakens the American negotiating position. They believe President Trump should project determination and self-confidence.
This pressure is heightened by reports that Trump wants to end the war due to the upcoming World Cup and November midterm elections.
Washington believes military pressure, the Hormuz blockade, and tougher sanctions will compel Iran to concede. But Tehran centers on enduring pressure and adapting. Thus, the sides pursue different success standards, casting doubt on a real agreement.
Senior political officials point to a complete lack of trust between the parties as a central obstacle.
Iran does not believe that the United States will honor long-term commitments regarding sanctions relief, especially after the collapse of the 2015 nuclear agreement.
Washington, meanwhile, doubts that Iran would respect any agreement related to its nuclear program or regional policies, given Tehran’s consistent reliance on deception and manipulation.
Without fundamental changes in expectations on both sides, credible trust mechanisms, and a genuine diplomatic path, negotiations will likely remain stalled, and escalation will be managed rather than resolved.
According to these political sources, the crisis between Iran and the United States goes beyond disputes over the nuclear program, sanctions, or control of the Strait of Hormuz. At its core, it is a clash of two worldviews: fundamentally different beliefs about the purpose and conduct of negotiations.
On one side stands the United States, or more precisely, President Trump, conducting the talks with the mindset of a fast-moving dealmaker seeking quick, clear, and measurable results.
On the other side, Iran approaches the confrontation with a long-term, methodical strategy, seeing each negotiation round as part of a larger, ongoing struggle for influence and power.
The issue at the heart of this confrontation is a profound absence of trust, which shapes every stage of negotiation and strategy.
To Iran, the U.S. has broken agreements, shifted positions, left the 2015 nuclear deal, and mixed pressure with engagement. Thus, Iran views negotiations as both an opportunity and a risk.
This explains Iran’s insistence on preconditions and refusal to discuss red lines like surrendering or halting uranium enrichment.
In Washington, a different logic prevails. Decisions are shaped by domestic politics, public opinion, midterms, internal rivalries, regional pressures, and the need to counter Russia and China.
Thus, negotiations swing between threats and compromise, diplomacy and hardened positions.
The outcome is inconsistent diplomacy: declarations seeking agreement contrasted with pressure, sanctions, and military signaling. From Iran’s perspective, this signals weakness, not strategy.
Iran views time strategically, leveraging delays and crises within ongoing negotiations.
Every delay in negotiations, every temporary crisis, and every renewal of external pressure is viewed as part of a prolonged campaign designed to exhaust the adversary through a war of attrition rather than rush toward a settlement.
Meanwhile, Iran shows unity around its hardline doctrine: reject negotiations under coercion and don’t surrender assets without major gains.
Security officials say the gap is more than political; it stems from opposing views on power and international order.
In Washington, talks are seen as a means to a fast deal.
In Tehran, negotiations are a continuous struggle.
In the United States, time is a constraint, pushing negotiators to reach conclusions quickly.
To Iran, time offers a strategic advantage in negotiations and confrontation.
This gap creates a situation in which each side interprets the other’s actions as mistakes or signs of weakness rather than as deliberate strategic choices.
Despite these differences, security sources assess that in the short term, given its military achievements, the United States holds a clear tactical advantage: economic leverage, regional military presence, and coordination with key allies.
In the medium and long term, the outlook is more complex.
Iran has developed a relatively high capacity to absorb sanctions and pressure, while also building a regional network of influence that enables it to apply indirect leverage.
In addition, its attrition strategy is better suited to prolonged confrontations with no rapid, decisive outcome.
Consequently, a prevailing assessment among some Israeli security officials is that if the negotiations remain short-term and narrowly focused, the United States will maintain the upper hand and dictate the terms of an agreement.
If the crisis turns into a drawn-out war of attrition, Iran is expected to improve its position and possibly impose a new reality.
The struggle between Tehran and Washington centers on more than the nuclear file or sanctions. It is fundamentally a competition between irreconcilable perceptions of time, political culture, and the use of power, sharpening the difficulties inherent in any negotiation.
This confrontation pits the American fast-deal negotiator against the Iranian strategist of attrition. The main question is not who is right, but which side can endure the longest, as time becomes the central weapon.
Ultimately, the decision on whether to move toward an agreement will rest with the Revolutionary Guards, who are highly skilled at the politics of perception and image. If they sense that President Trump is under intense pressure to secure a deal, the negotiations are likely to drag on, while Tehran attempts to turn up the pressure to secure further American concessions.
