Iranian negotiators admire a clever argument. They call this cleverness zerangi, which in the psyche of the Iranian negotiator gives him legitimacy to make dramatic departures from the course of talks, as well as using threats, bluffing, and disinformation.
A negotiator who is adept at discourse manipulation is highly esteemed in Iran. This is not cynicism for its own sake. The concept of zerangi is a source of pride and social capital.
For Iran, appearing rhetorically stronger in negotiations is often seen as a victory, regardless of what the final agreement ultimately delivers.
Time is a weapon, not a deadline
Many US officials see negotiations as a way to resolve disputes, preferring direct, results-driven talks designed to reach agreements quickly and move to implementation. On the other side, Iranian leaders often approach negotiations as a strategic contest in which time itself becomes a weapon.
Success is not necessarily measured by reaching an agreement, it may be measured by preserving options, exhausting an opponent’s political patience, surviving external pressure and advancing long-term objectives one increment at a time.
As one analyst put it, “Trumpian diplomacy tends to value speed, spectacle and a visible deal,” while Iran’s approach is built on the clash of negotiating tempos.
Where does this leave the current talks?
The MoU between Washington and Tehran, brokered by Pakistan and signed on 18 June, provides a framework for ending the war, covering a ceasefire, sanctions relief, the nuclear file, the Strait of Hormuz and regional security.
But Iran’s public denial of direct talks, even as Doha discussions proceed through Qatari mediators, is entirely consistent with its historical playbook.
Washington sees delay; Tehran sees bargaining. Each side believes the other is behaving irrationally, even though both are actually operating under different strategic assumptions.
Vance says Washington cares about what Iran does, not what it says. That may be exactly the right approach because in Persian negotiating culture, what is said and what is meant are rarely the same thing.
Related
