Tehran (Informed Comment) – In his speech at the United Nations General Assembly on September 22, U.S. President Donald Trump said that before both major stages of the war with Iran, he had given Tehran opportunities to reach a deal and accept Washington’s conditions. Iran refused, he said, and the United States then launched Operation Midnight Hammer and Operation Epic Fury. Yet even after these military operations, Trump said that a deal with Iran was still possible.
Trump’s account brings a larger question: Why has increasing pressure on Iran failed to produce the kind of concessions Washington expected?
Iran has faced years of severe sanctions, high inflation, economic disruption and restrictions on its oil exports and access to international finance. Ordinary life has been affected by these pressures. The country has also now experienced two major stages of direct military confrontation. Yet Tehran has still not accepted what the Trump administration describes as a “complete” agreement.
This cannot simply be explained as Iranian stubbornness. Iran has negotiated before and has accepted significant compromises. The 2015 nuclear agreement itself showed that Tehran could make major concessions when they were part of a reciprocal bargain. The question, therefore, is not why Iran refuses to negotiate. It is why Iran refuses to accept a one-sided agreement under pressure.
A Strategic Culture Shaped by History
Part of the answer may lie in Iran’s strategic culture.
Strategic culture refers to the historical experiences and political ideas that shape how a country understands security, sovereignty, power and relations with other states. Every country has such a culture, but these cultures develop differently according to geography, history, wars and foreign intervention.
Iran has a particularly long experience of foreign invasion and external pressure. Its geographical position has repeatedly placed it at the center of conflicts between major powers. Alexander the Great conquered Persia. Centuries later, the Arab conquest brought the Sasanian Empire to an end. The Mongol invasions again brought massive destruction and political upheaval.
These were major military defeats. Iran was conquered, and in different periods it remained under foreign political control. Yet conquest did not erase Iranian political and cultural identity. Persian language and culture survived, political institutions were rebuilt, and Iran repeatedly reconstructed itself after periods of foreign invasion.
This does not mean that there has been one unchanged Iranian strategic culture from ancient Persia to the present. Modern Iran is obviously very different from ancient Persia. But a longer historical experience matters because repeated encounters with foreign invasion and intervention helped create a strong sensitivity toward sovereignty, independence and national dignity.
This is important when looking at Iran’s behavior today.
Resistance by the Islamic Republic is often explained mainly through religion and ideology. These factors clearly matter. But ideology alone cannot explain the broader pattern. Iranian resistance to foreign domination existed long before Islam, political Islam or the Islamic Republic. Persian resistance to Alexander, for example, obviously had nothing to do with modern religious ideology.
The argument, therefore, is that historical experience appears to have made the idea of accepting foreign demands under direct pressure particularly difficult.
The Difference Between a Deal and Surrender
This distinction is central.
Iran can negotiate. Iran can compromise. Iran can accept restrictions and make concessions when it receives something in return.
But there is an important difference between a negotiated bargain and a concession imposed by force.
