The persistence of this outlook seems to be placing Iran in the position of a player that possesses both deterrent power and the capacity for interaction—a combination that will be decisive in the future equations of West Asia.

Regardless of whether Tehran considers diplomacy to be intrinsically valuable or not, in its interactions over the past 40 years, it has preferred to choose the latter between military tension and diplomacy, a choice Iran strives to never make out of compulsion or imposition.

The wise use of diplomacy is more important for Iran today than ever before because, on one hand, it is accused of being unenthusiastic in pursuing this path, and on the other hand, it has an enemy in the region that has a long-standing hostility towards diplomacy.

Diplomacy never ends; it always exists, is the belief of Iran's foreign policy, as stated by the Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, during a meeting with a group of ambassadors and chargés d'affaires in Iran.

Araghchi said at this meeting, alongside all the facts he presented about developments, that from Iran’s perspective, the role of diplomacy is never deleted or neglected. Iran will continue on this path, and Iran acts responsibly in using the tool of diplomacy to pursue its interests.

The spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also emphasized the continued use of diplomatic tools in interactions with the world during his recent weekly press conference.

We believe the path of diplomacy is never closed. We use all tools to secure the national interests of our country, and whenever we determine that diplomacy is effective and fruitful, we will not hesitate to use it. Of course, it is natural for diplomacy, meaning the continuation of contacts and consultations, to persist; whenever we feel that diplomacy can be fruitful, we will certainly make decisions based on the expediency and interests of the country, said Esmaeil Baghaei.

The emphasis on diplomacy by officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not mean denying the existing challenges in Iran’s relations with some Western countries, which is why both Araghchi and Baghaei referred to these challenges in the meetings.

The reality is that the deadlock felt today on the path of diplomacy is, in the words of the Foreign Minister, the result of the excessive demands of the Western side, and as Baghaei emphasized, "the issue is that matters between Iran and America are mostly, and one can say absolutely, due to its miscalculation and excessive demands.”

Iran’s diplomacy over past year

The belief of the Islamic Republic of Iran in pursuing its interests through diplomacy over the past 40 years has been clearer than needing proof.

If we consider the sending of a letter from the US President as the starting point, it becomes clear that Tehran showed the greatest flexibility in responding to this letter and began indirect negotiations with the US President’s special envoy.

These negotiations continued for five rounds, and on the verge of the sixth round, Tehran was bombed by the Israeli regime with America’s green light.

Prior to negotiations with Washington, Tehran repeatedly and frequently held talks with representatives of the three European countries and sought to resolve existing problems through diplomacy.

Extensive cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to demonstrate the absence of deviation in its nuclear activities was also part of Iran’s routine and daily agenda.

Following the attack on its nuclear facilities and various cities across the country in mid-June 2025, Tehran deemed the diplomatic method ineffective at the time and stood with all its power against the violation of its national sovereignty.

However, even during those 12 days of war, it did not completely set aside diplomacy, to the extent that, amidst the Israeli regime’s bombing, the Foreign Minister met and held talks in Geneva with his counterparts from Britain, Germany, and France, as well as the European Union representative.

The end of the twelve-day war marked the beginning of international requests to return to the negotiation table; this time, however, Iran tried to use another tool of diplomacy—the legal dimension—to advance its goals.

During this period, Araghchi and Iran’s diplomatic delegation emphasized in every conversation and platform: "Why should they again heed the claim of diplomacy by the country or countries that bombed Tehran in the midst of diplomatic talks?" A logical question for which Washington and the European Troika usually found no answer.

The peak of Iran’s goodwill on the path of diplomacy occurred in Cairo, Egypt; where it decided to keep open the path for returning to a reasonable formula and framework with the IAEA as the principal supervisory body over its nuclear activities.

The Islamic Republic of Iran had decided, despite all events, as a responsible country in the world, to still maintain its membership in the NPT and announced its conditional readiness to resume cooperation with the Agency in Cairo, Egypt.

This level of goodwill and flexibility required positive feedback from the other side, and Iran stated its condition for this feedback as the non-activation of the so-called snapback mechanism and the non-return of UN Security Council sanctions.

However, the activation of the snapback and the reimposition of sanctions was precisely the deadlock created by the European countries.

Nevertheless, Tehran, in its final step and at the UN General Assembly, employed its last efforts to break this deadlock; however, the ultimate flexibility was ignored due to American instigation and European implementation, placing diplomacy in one of its least effective periods.

Why is diplomacy important in West Asia?

If we accept that the region and the world are currently grappling with super-crises such as war and genocide, migration, and economic recession, diplomacy is the least costly way to reduce the consequences of these crises.

This tool can help the country deal with these challenges at a low cost. The burden that diplomacy can currently lift from the region’s conditions is incomparable to anything else because it can significantly reduce the material and human costs of reaching a solution between two states or rival governments and avoiding military confrontation and tension.

The reality is that although diplomacy is the best tool for stability across the world, this tool is more of a need and necessity in the chaotic Middle East than in other geographical regions.

West Asia, after experiencing two short but significant military conflicts, now stands at a point where any war and military conflict will inflict irreparable damage on its shaky economic, political, and even social and cultural infrastructures.

Although diplomacy and its use to overcome existing crises is the most rational path and logical way, in West Asia, there is a regime and a prime minister that not only does not accept and implement this logical principle, but rejects it and acts contrary to it.

Since the Israeli regime has obtained the basis of its legitimacy through force and weapons, it cannot tolerate any concept that contradicts this source of legitimacy.

For Benjamin Netanyahu, dialogue as a part of diplomacy and establishing peace and stability following this dialogue means political death, and therefore, any solution that delays this death and creates turmoil is a priority and important for him.

The warmongering of the Israeli regime, which in every period somehow drags and draws America into this bitter desire, has turned peace in the region into a scarce commodity, thereby doubling the importance and credibility of diplomacy.

Iran's emphasis on dialogue, while possessing the capability and power to defend itself under any circumstances, has been Tehran’s trump card in recent months.

However, stepping into a diplomatic process must also be declared as an essential and accepted principle by the opposing sides, and signs of this desire must be clearly seen.

This is why Tehran is ready for dialogue and the use of diplomacy as soon as it sees signs of rationality in the West’s approach.