NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Iran’s regime just told us everything we need to know.
Within days, Tehran went from signaling that the Strait of Hormuz would remain open to threatening to close it. That reversal is a reminder that the regime cannot be trusted to uphold any deal it signs because its strategy depends on constant threats and keeping the world off balance.
The issue isn’t what they say. It’s who’s really in charge.
Iran’s regime does not operate as a normal state. Its leaders often signal calm to ease pressure or buy time. But the real authority sits with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The IRGC controls the missiles, the proxy networks, and the ability to disrupt global shipping. When it matters, they decide.
PAKISTANI GENERAL SAYS IRAN DIPLOMACY STILL 'ALIVE, DESPITE US BLOCKADE, FAILED TALKS
And they benefit from instability.
The Strait of Hormuz is one of the regime’s most effective tools of coercion. A fifth of the world’s oil flows through it. Iran doesn’t need to shut it down to create a crisis. It just needs to make the threat believable. Even talk of disruption can rattle markets and drive up energy prices.
U.S. Central Command said Wednesday that "After implementing the blockade on ships entering and departing Iranian ports, American forces halted economic trade going into and out of Iran by sea." (CENTCOM)
That’s exactly what we’re seeing now. Tehran signals restraint, then pivots back to escalation. It’s not meant to sow confusion. It’s meant to gain leverage.
STEVE FORBES: NO MORE DELUSIONS — AMERICA HAS TO FINISH THE JOB IN IRAN
This creates a serious problem for anyone still hoping a new agreement with Iran’s regime will bring lasting stability.
Deals rely on consistency. The Iranian system is built for the opposite.
For years, U.S. and European officials have negotiated as if Iran’s commitments on paper would translate into predictable behavior. But the regime’s most powerful actors are not invested in keeping those commitments. This regime was not designed to be constrained, reformed or tamed. The IRGC’s influence depends on sanctions evasion, regional militias, and the constant threat of escalation.
MORNING GLORY: THE US-IRAN NEGOTIATIONS IN ISLAMABAD BECAME REYKJAVÍK 2.0
If Washington’s imperative is ‘no nukes for Tehran,’ then it must recognize that this regime was built not only to chase deadly weapons but to use every tool as power in its dangerous agenda.
A protester holds 'Stop executions in Iran' and 'Free Iran' placards during the demonstration. Demonstrators gathered outside Downing Street in protest against executions in Iran and in support of freedom for Iran. (Vuk Valcic/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
The shift on Hormuz makes that reality clear. When forced to choose between appearing cooperative and maintaining leverage, the regime chooses leverage.
That has direct consequences for U.S. policy.
ROBERT MAGINNIS: WHY ISLAMABAD TALKS WERE ALWAYS DOOMED TO FAIL
Washington cannot afford to treat diplomacy as an end in itself. An agreement that is not backed by real enforcement, credible military deterrence, and a clear understanding of who holds power in Tehran will not hold. It will be tested, stretched, and eventually broken when the regime decides it can get away with it.
A regime that turns a vital energy chokepoint into a pressure tool is not a responsible partner. It is the opposite. The back‑and‑forth over Hormuz is a hard reminder that Tehran’s core strategy is leverage through threat, not cooperation.
As long as that is how the system is wired, any agreement with this regime will be inherently unstable. Why let the regime decide what the next about-face will be?
IRGC intelligence chief Majid Khademi was killed in an Israeli precision strike that also took out a Quds force commander early Monday morning. (POOL via WANA/Reuters, AP Images)
That should also tell us where U.S. policy needs to go. Washington has to stop pretending this regime can be "managed" with better communiqués and slightly tougher clauses. The problem is not the wording of the deal. The problem is the nature of the regime that signs it. And regardless of how many of their high-ranking leaders have been killed, it is still the same regime.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
So negotiations should not be treated as a path to stabilizing this leadership, but as a temporary tool while we tighten pressure for its eventual replacement. Any new deal with the current rulers in Tehran will follow the same script of brief restraint when it suits them, followed by another round of ‘diplomacy’ the moment they need leverage. A serious strategy would focus on weakening the regime’s grip at home, targeting its security apparatus and economic lifelines, and openly backing the Iranian people who keep risking their lives to challenge it.
The fight over Hormuz is a reminder of how this regime will treat every agreement it signs, right up until the day it is finally gone.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM LISA DAFTARI
Lisa Daftari is a foreign policy analyst and editor-in-chief at The Foreign Desk.
