According to US media reports, on July 2 local time, US President Trump said that negotiations between the US and Iran are making progress, and he believes that Iran has basically agreed to almost all of the key demands put forward by the US.

Every time the US and Iran restart negotiations, it raises a long-standing core question: can the agreement truly change Iran's regional behavior, or is it merely a temporary ceasefire that postpones the conflict to the future, while giving Tehran time to rebuild and restore its strategic capabilities?

This issue cannot be reduced to uranium enrichment technology parameters or the order of sanctions lifting; it is directly related to the direction of regional order—and what form the forces that will determine regional balance in the next decade will take.

Even if the US and Iran reach a new nuclear agreement, it is unlikely to affect Iran's broader strategic posture in the Middle East. Iran's influence, spanning Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, is neither derived from nor originates from its nuclear program—it reflects Tehran's deep-seated political belief that Iran's security and influence are not achieved through territorial borders, but rather through a network of transnational alliances that penetrate the regional environment and tilt the regional balance in Iran's favor.

The logic supporting negotiation: Can economic incentives change behavior?

Those advocating for a "grand deal" with Iran share a consistent theoretical premise: long-term sanctions and accumulated economic pressure have significantly weakened the Iranian economy, and integration into the global economic system will incentivize Tehran to prioritize development over confrontation. Following this reasoning, a country gaining access to investment, trade, and international finance will be more inclined to focus on domestic welfare and stability rather than military adventures.

The most concrete benefits of the agreement involve Iran's frozen overseas assets. Lifting sanctions or partially releasing these assets would provide Iran with meaningful fiscal space amid inflation, currency devaluation, and rising living costs. The 2015 nuclear agreement provided a favorable precedent—the Obama administration believed it would empower moderates and that emerging economic interests would force Tehran to reprioritize its priorities—but the actual track record has significantly deviated from expectations.

A lesson from history: Where did the resources from the 2015 agreement go?

The record of the 2015 nuclear agreement is alarming. Tehran gained economic and political space, but this did not translate into domestic liberalization or a contraction of its regional programs. Instead, this period witnessed the expansion of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' influence and the consolidation of Iranian-affiliated forces throughout the region. The allocation of available resources to tools of influence rather than moderation—an outcome that seriously undermines the original premises.

From this perspective, suspending flammation or easing sanctions does not necessarily signify a fundamental shift in Iran's strategy. Therefore, while small agreements with Iran may contain specific crises, they are unlikely to address the more fundamental questions: has the regime's perception of its regional role changed, or are there only tools available for negotiation while the basic direction remains unchanged?

Contemporary Argument: How is Iran today different from Iran in 2015?

Supporters of the current negotiations with the Trump administration argue that contemporary Iran is fundamentally different from that of 2015. Its alliance network has suffered significant losses, international sanctions have depleted its resources, and the regional power distribution has clearly shifted. Therefore, the Iranian leadership will be constrained to prioritize domestic integration over external expansion and will be willing to compromise on foreign policy priorities in order to rebuild its strength and withstand internal challenges.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio articulated this view in his testimony to Congress in early June: "The prospect before us is...for the first time in history, they have agreed to negotiate on all aspects of the nuclear program—where just a month ago, they refused to even mention it, let alone discuss it."

However, this argument underestimates an important structural consideration: regimes rarely abandon the tenets that underpin their fundamental legitimacy. If two decades of significant military and economic pressure have failed to induce a revision of Iran's political philosophy, then the assumption that the influx of resources alone can produce such a shift is analytically fragile.

Real Risk

These observations do not necessarily mean that the agreement is worthless or should be rejected. De-escalation has its own importance—preventing military escalation is a legitimate and widely recognized regional objective, and continued conflict is not in the long-term interest of any actor.

The error in the analysis lies in assuming that the agreement itself can alter the nature of the Islamic Republic or reshape its strategic creed. Agreements are tools for conflict management, not solutions—they can postpone confrontation without addressing its root causes, and manage crises without redefining the events that gave rise to them. Therefore, for the United States, the key question is not whether the agreement will "succeed"—that depends on negotiating leverage and situational calculations—but whether it will produce a genuine change in Iran's regional behavior or merely provide temporary respite and additional resources for restructuring the capabilities that initially raised concerns.

Editor's Summary

The US-Iran negotiations reflect the complexity of shaping regional behavior through economic incentives. History shows that resources released from sanctions have often been used to strengthen rather than shrink networks of influence. The current agreement seeks a balance between releasing frozen assets and nuclear restrictions, but a more comprehensive framework is needed to change Iran's transnational alliance strategy. Future outcomes will depend on compliance mechanisms and regional dynamics, posing significant variables to global energy security and the investment environment.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Why is it difficult for the US-Iran agreement to change Iran's regional behavior?

A: Iran's influence is primarily exercised through a network of proxies called the "axis of resistance," including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iraqi militias, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. This network is rooted in the regime's core creed, not its nuclear capabilities. Following the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, economic relief resources flowed more towards strengthening these tools than towards retrenchment, demonstrating the limited impact of economic incentives on strategic creeds.

Q2: What were the actual effects of the 2015 nuclear agreement?

A: The agreement limited Iran's nuclear program and lifted some sanctions, but Iran did not reduce its regional interference. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' influence expanded, and proxy activities continued. The agreement's "sunset clauses" also raised long-term concerns; after the US withdrew in 2018, Iran gradually exceeded the restrictions. The new agreement attempts to learn from these lessons, but similar risks remain.

Q3: What is the status of the release of the frozen assets under the current agreement?

A: The latest framework involves the phased release of $12-25 billion in frozen assets, which must be linked to nuclear commitments and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. The US emphasizes "pay-for-performance," meaning Iran needs to meet milestones to receive funds to alleviate economic pressure, but the actual release is still subject to strict monitoring and conditions.

Q4: What is the current status of Iran's proxy network?

A: Recent conflicts have damaged networks, such as the weakening capabilities of Hezbollah and the Houthis, but the core structure remains. Iran maintains its influence through asymmetric means, and the agreement, if it provides resources, could help it rebuild. A complete severance would require targeted sanctions and regional cooperation.

Q5: What impact will the agreement have on global financial markets?

A: Successful implementation could stabilize oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz (accounting for approximately 20% of global shipments), alleviating oil price volatility and inflationary pressures; failure could reignite conflict, drive up energy costs, and increase investment uncertainty. Investors should pay close attention to the progress of the 60-day negotiations and sanctions developments, and remain cautious in their allocation of Middle East-related assets.