For decades, governments attempting to address Iran’s growing regional influence and nuclear ambitions have relied on diplomacy, sanctions and negotiations. A detailed analysis by the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs argues that these approaches have often failed because they have not fully accounted for the historical experiences and cultural patterns that influence Iran’s political behavior.
The analysis examines Iran through the lens of more than 2,500 years of history, arguing that ancient traditions, survival strategies and perceptions of power continue to shape the way Iranian leaders and society respond to domestic and international challenges. It presents the view that understanding these factors is critical for policymakers seeking to interpret Tehran’s actions and intentions.
At the center of the report is the argument that Iran’s political culture cannot be understood solely through modern events. The analysis traces Iran’s identity back to the period before Islam, describing a civilization that maintained a distinct cultural and political character despite invasions, foreign rule and major religious transformations.
The report highlights the Arab-Islamic conquests of the seventh century as a significant moment in Iran’s history. While many regions adopted Arabic language and culture following conquest, the analysis states that Iran preserved its Persian identity by absorbing elements of the new order while influencing its rulers. Persian administrators, scholars and political traditions became central to the governance of the expanding Islamic empire, allowing Iranian culture to survive and continue shaping the region.
According to the analysis, this historical experience created a lasting sense of national identity among Iranians. The report states that Iran’s population has maintained strong connections to its history and views the preservation of national pride as a central part of its collective identity.
The analysis argues that one of the most important elements in understanding Iran’s political behavior is the importance placed on strength and authority. It states that Iranian rulers have traditionally been expected to demonstrate resolve and maintain control, while leaders perceived as weak risk losing support.
The report uses the 1978–79 Iranian Revolution as a case study of how perceptions of power can influence political change. It describes how support shifted toward Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as the monarchy under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi weakened. The analysis argues that many people moved toward the emerging revolutionary leadership as they believed the balance of power was changing, even before fully understanding the new political direction.
The report also examines the 444-day U.S. embassy hostage crisis that began in 1979, describing it as an example of how Iranian leaders interpreted foreign responses. According to the analysis, attempts by the United States to negotiate during the crisis were viewed by Iranian actors as signs of hesitation rather than efforts toward resolution.
The concept of compromise is another major focus of the report. While Western diplomacy often considers negotiation and confidence-building measures as tools for reducing tensions, the analysis argues that Iranian political culture may interpret concessions differently. It states that compromise can be perceived as a sign of weakness, while forcing another party to concede is associated with greater influence and prestige.
The report extends this argument to international negotiations, including discussions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program. It suggests that Tehran may approach negotiations not only as a process of reaching agreements but also as a contest involving leverage, timing and the demonstration of strength.
A significant portion of the analysis focuses on ketman, or dissimulation, which it describes as a practice of concealing personal views or intentions in response to political circumstances. The report argues that this tradition has made it difficult for outside observers to measure public opinion in Iran because individuals may express views that align with those in power rather than their private beliefs.
The analysis compares this practice to the layers of an onion, suggesting that Iranian society has developed multiple levels of protection around personal opinions. It states that this approach developed as a means of survival through periods of foreign domination, political instability and changing rulers.
The report also examines questions of loyalty and political alignment. It argues that Iranian society has historically adapted to uncertainty by maintaining connections across different political groups. The analysis describes examples of individuals and families maintaining relationships with competing factions to protect themselves regardless of which side eventually gains power.
Iran’s approach to negotiation and strategy is further examined through comparisons with chess, a game historically associated with Persian culture. The analysis states that Iranian decision-making often emphasizes long-term planning, anticipating opponents’ moves and maintaining multiple options.
The nuclear issue remains the most prominent modern concern addressed in the report. The analysis states that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capability has raised concerns among regional governments and Western nations because of the potential impact on security in the Middle East and beyond.
The report argues that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are tied not only to military capability but also to national identity and perceptions of international status. It states that many Iranians view arguments against Iran possessing nuclear technology through the context of national pride, particularly when other countries in the region and around the world possess nuclear weapons.
At the same time, the analysis distinguishes between Iran’s government and the Iranian population, arguing that opposition to Tehran’s policies should not be interpreted as opposition to Iran itself. It suggests that understanding the difference between national identity and government policy is an important factor in addressing the nuclear dispute.
The report also discusses Iran’s regional influence and its relationship with groups and movements beyond its borders. It states that the Iranian leadership has sought to expand its influence while using political, ideological and strategic tools to advance its objectives.
Throughout the analysis, the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs emphasizes that misunderstandings between Iran and Western governments have often resulted from different interpretations of diplomacy, power and negotiation. It argues that policymakers have frequently viewed Iranian actions through Western assumptions about compromise, transparency and communication, creating gaps in understanding.
The report concludes that Iran’s modern behavior is closely connected to historical experiences and cultural patterns developed over centuries. As international concerns continue over Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional role, the analysis argues that examining these deeper factors remains a significant part of understanding Tehran’s strategy and future actions.
