Washington has been here before and it rarely ends well. Every few years, the same idea comes back around: ease the pressure on Iran, offer economic relief, and hope that this time the regime will choose stability over confrontation. Now it’s being framed again as a $20 billion incentive. But we don’t have to guess what happens next. We’ve already seen it.
Money doesn’t calm Tehran. It frees it. The logic behind sanctions relief sounds reasonable on paper, that economic incentives can encourage better behavior. But in practice, the opposite has been true. When pressure eases, Iran doesn’t pull back. It leans in. It expands its regional reach, reinforces proxy networks, and continues investing in missiles and drones.
Cash doesn’t buy peace. It buys breathing room and Tehran uses that breathing room to prepare for the next round.
TEHRAN’S ART OF THE DEAL: A SLOW CREEP, AND BEFORE YOU NOTICE, IT’S TOO LATE
This cycle isn’t theoretical. It’s a pattern. Periods of diplomacy and financial relief are followed by more advanced attacks, wider regional influence, and a growing sense inside the regime that it can act without consequence. Calling that strategy is generous. In reality, it looks more like wishful thinking.
With U.S. policy potentially shifting again, the risk is repeating the same mistake at a higher cost. Any future deal that puts billions of dollars on the table without fundamentally changing Iran’s behavior isn’t a breakthrough: it’s a bailout.
If Washington is serious about stability, it has to start setting terms that actually matter.
That begins with maritime security. The Strait of Hormuz isn’t just another flash point — it’s one of the most critical energy chokepoints in the world. Allowing Iran to threaten it, even implicitly, puts global markets and U.S. interests at risk.
It also means dealing with the nuclear issue in real terms, not political language. Pauses and promises aren’t enough. Highly enriched uranium must be removed from Iran and placed under strict international control. Verification has to be built on enforcement, not trust.
There’s also a harder truth that policymakers often avoid: If Iran wants a civilian nuclear program, it doesn’t need enrichment. There are models for that. The United Arab Emirates accepted those terms. Iran has repeatedly shown why it can’t be given the same benefit of the doubt.
Then there’s the issue that sits at the center of everything else, which is its network of proxies. From Iraq to Lebanon to Yemen, these groups extend Iran’s reach and destabilize entire regions. Any agreement that leaves that system intact isn’t solving the problem. It’s working around it.
The same goes for missiles and drones. These aren’t side problems anymore. They are core to how Iran projects power. Ignoring them just guarantees the next crisis will be more dangerous than the last.
None of this is extreme. It’s basic.
The idea that economic relief will empower “moderates” inside Iran has been repeated for years, but it doesn’t match how the system actually works. Resources don’t flow to reformers. They flow to the parts of the regime that maintain control and project power. That’s not speculation, it’s how the system is built.
And while Washington debates intentions, the region deals with consequences. Every escalation, whether it’s a drone strike, a missile barrage, or harassment in the Gulf, raises the risk of a wider conflict. Injecting billions into that environment doesn’t reduce tension. It raises the stakes.
The United States doesn’t need another deal that temporarily lowers the temperature while setting up the next crisis. It needs a strategy rooted in leverage, clear conditions, and a realistic understanding of who it’s dealing with.
TWO WEEKS TO STOP THE WAR: TRUMP’S TREPIDATIOUS IRAN TIMELINE
There’s no evidence that Tehran will moderate in exchange for economic relief. There’s plenty of evidence that it won’t.
At some point, that reality has to shape policy. Because appeasement doesn’t lead to stability. It just pays for the next round of chaos.
Heyrsh Abdulrahman is a Washington-based senior intelligence analyst and writer specializing in Middle East security, U.S. foreign policy, Iraqi governance, and Kurdish political affairs. His work appears in leading U.S. and international publications.