Despite escalating pressure, repeated negotiations, and even military confrontation, the United States and Iran remain locked in a persistent deadlock. The ongoing negotiations following the US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities on February 28, 2026, illustrate the core problem: while Iran has signalled willingness to de-escalate—such as proposing to reopen the Strait of Hormuz—it has resisted addressing the nuclear issue upfront, seeking instead to defer it. The United States, by contrast, insists that nuclear constraints must be the starting point of any agreement. This divergence is not merely technical—it is structural. It reflects a deeper reality: the nuclear issue is not just another policy variable, but the most politically and symbolically charged component of the conflict. As a result, even intense pressure and partial compromises have failed to produce a breakthrough.
For more than four decades, US–Iran relations have followed a familiar and frustrating cycle: confrontation, negotiation, partial progress, and relapse. Policy responses have largely been guided by a simple premise—that sufficiently high costs will eventually compel behavioural change. Yet the persistence of the standoff suggests that this premise is incomplete. The problem is not a lack of effort, but a misunderstanding of the forces that sustain the conflict.
What if the problem is not that pressure has been insufficient, but that it has been misdirected?
A growing body of observations and studies suggests that the behaviour of regimes with strongly held positions cannot be explained by cost-benefit calculations alone. Rather, it is shaped by the interaction of three deeper pillars: belief and emotional attachment, cost-benefit considerations, and enabling conditions. Together, these elements define a deeply entrenched behavioural equilibrium that may persist even in the face of significant external pressure or wartime damage.
This perspective helps explain a central puzzle in US–Iran relations. Despite decades of sanctions and periodic military escalation, Iran’s core posture has remained remarkably consistent. From a narrow economic perspective, such persistence may appear irrational. But when viewed through the lens of the three-pillar framework, it becomes intelligible—and, more importantly, it becomes possible to address.
Cost-benefit considerations, while always relevant, are only one part of the equation. Equally important are beliefs rooted in historical experience, national identity, and the narrative of resistance. These are reinforced by emotional attachments to sovereignty, dignity, and legacy—factors that often outweigh immediate economic costs. At the same time, enabling conditions—such as institutional structures, geopolitical positioning, and domestic political constraints—help sustain these preferences over time. When these three pillars align, they lock in the very dynamic that external pressure seeks to disrupt.
In such a context, policies that focus primarily on raising economic costs are unlikely to produce lasting change. Indeed, they may have the opposite effect—reinforcing narratives of external hostility, strengthening belief-based resistance, and deepening emotional commitment to the status quo.
If this dynamic holds, then incremental adjustments—more sanctions, sharper rhetoric, or limited concessions—are unlikely to alter its foundations. What is required instead is a strategic shift that engages all three pillars simultaneously: one that reshapes incentives, reframes beliefs, and modifies enabling conditions in a coherent and mutually reinforcing way.
Reframing the Nuclear Deadlock
Nowhere is this challenge more evident than in the nuclear issue, which has long been the focal point of US–Iran tensions. Conventional approaches have centred on technical solutions—limiting enrichment, strengthening verification, and, in some cases, relocating nuclear materials abroad. While these measures are important, they have repeatedly encountered political resistance.
The difficulty lies not in technical design, but in political meaning. For Iran, the nuclear programme is not merely a set of facilities or materials; it is embedded in a broader narrative of scientific achievement, sovereignty, and strategic autonomy. Proposals that involve transferring sensitive materials abroad, even if technically sound, can be perceived domestically as compromising these values. As a result, they raise the political and symbolic cost of agreement to a level that is difficult to sustain.
Recognising this constraint suggests the need for a different kind of solution—one that addresses not only the technical dimensions of the problem, but also its political and symbolic significance.
A Breakthrough Idea: From Nuclear Sites to Peace Parks
One promising approach is to fundamentally reframe the nuclear issue. Instead of removing or relocating nuclear materials, the United States and Iran—working with international partners—could agree to permanently seal and bury sensitive materials under strict international supervision, while transforming these sites into globally recognised memorial parks dedicated to peace and non-proliferation.
At first glance, this idea may appear unconventional. It is. But unconventional problems call for unconventional solutions—and this proposal directly addresses the core constraints that have hindered past efforts.
From a technical perspective, it offers a credible pathway to irreversibility. Properly designed and monitored, the sealing and burial of materials could ensure that they remain inaccessible for military use, thereby addressing a central security concern.
From a political perspective, it transforms the narrative. Rather than appearing to concede under external pressure, Iran could frame the decision as a sovereign and forward-looking initiative—one that redefines its nuclear legacy in terms of responsibility and global contribution. This significantly lowers the domestic cost of agreement.
From a broader perspective, it converts a source of tension into an opportunity. Sites associated with nuclear development could become spaces for education, reflection, and international engagement. Over time, they could join a global network of landmarks that commemorate the risks of nuclear technology and the importance of restraint.
In this way, the nuclear issue shifts from a zero-sum contest over capability to a platform for cooperation.
Shifting the Equilibrium
The significance of this proposal lies in its ability to engage all three pillars simultaneously. It reshapes cost-benefit incentives by reducing security risks and opening new avenues for economic engagement, including tourism and international cooperation. It transforms beliefs and narratives by redefining the meaning of the nuclear programme—from a symbol of confrontation to one of peace and responsibility. And it modifies enabling conditions by creating a new institutional and symbolic framework within which cooperation becomes both feasible and legitimate.
Durable change does not come from intensifying pressure along a single dimension, but from altering the underlying configuration of incentives, beliefs, and conditions that sustain behaviour.
Toward a Broader Regional Framework
A breakthrough on the nuclear issue could serve as the foundation for a wider process of engagement. With trust gradually rebuilt, the United States and Iran—together with the United Nations and regional partners—could explore a broader framework for stability and cooperation in the Middle East.
Such a framework would not seek to eliminate differences overnight. Rather, it would aim to manage them constructively through dialogue, confidence-building, and economic collaboration. Over time, this could help reposition Iran as a participant in regional development rather than a source of instability.
Experience from other regions suggests that once a critical threshold of trust is reached, cooperation can expand in ways previously considered unlikely. The normalisation of relations between the United States and Vietnam provides a compelling example of how engagement can transform even deeply entrenched conflicts. What made that transformation possible was not the elimination of grievances, but a gradual process in which both sides found ways to reframe the relationship domestically—a dynamic that the Peace Parks proposal is similarly designed to enable.
Conclusion
The enduring tensions between the United States and Iran reflect more than a series of policy disagreements. They are the product of a deeply entrenched dynamic shaped by material incentives, belief systems, and enabling conditions. As long as these underlying factors remain aligned, behaviour is unlikely to change in a fundamental way.
Recent developments only reinforce this conclusion: escalating pressure has not produced resolution, but rather deepened the stalemate. What is needed instead is a strategy that engages incentives, beliefs, and enabling conditions together.
The proposal to transform nuclear sites into memorial parks is one such approach. By addressing technical concerns, reshaping narratives, and creating new opportunities for engagement, it offers a pathway to move beyond the constraints that have limited past efforts.
The idea may seem ambitious. But in a context where conventional strategies have repeatedly fallen short, ambition is not a weakness—it is a requirement.