Back-channel diplomacy persists amid systemic US-Iran rivalry: Structural entrenchment overrides episodic talks despite regional instability

Indigenous and traditional Persian diplomatic practices, such as the use of intermediaries ('vaseteh') and symbolic gestures, offer a framework for understanding back-channel diplomacy that prioritizes indirect communication to preserve honor and avoid escalation. These methods contrast with Western legalistic approaches, which often demand public accountability and transparency, leading to deadlocks. The omission of such traditions in mainstream coverage reflects a broader erasure of non-Western diplomatic epistemologies in international relations.

The US-Iran rivalry is deeply embedded in a century of interventions, from the 1953 coup that overthrew Prime Minister Mossadegh to the 1979 hostage crisis and subsequent sanctions regimes. The 2015 JCPOA, despite its flaws, represented a rare moment of diplomatic convergence, only to collapse under Trump’s 'maximum pressure' policy, which mirrored historical patterns of economic warfare used by colonial powers. The persistence of back-channel talks echoes Cold War-era 'Track II diplomacy,' where unofficial actors bridged gaps between hostile states, suggesting that structural enmity may be more durable than episodic negotiations imply.

Cross-culturally, the Iran-US dynamic can be compared to the India-Pakistan rivalry, where back-channel diplomacy (e.g., the 2007 'backchannel' talks) has occasionally yielded breakthroughs despite public hostility. In both cases, third-party mediators (e.g., Oman, Switzerland) play a critical role in facilitating communication, highlighting the importance of neutral ground in high-stakes negotiations. The framing of Iran as a 'rogue state' in Western media contrasts with its self-perception as a civilizational power resisting hegemony, a dichotomy that obscures shared interests in regional stability.

Academic research on conflict resolution demonstrates that back-channel diplomacy reduces the risk of miscalculation in crises by allowing negotiators to explore options without public pressure, a finding supported by case studies of the Cold War and post-Soviet conflicts. The 'security dilemma' framework explains why both Iran and the US engage in covert talks: each perceives the other’s actions as inherently threatening, leading to a spiral of distrust. However, the lack of transparency in such channels can also enable spoilers—actors who benefit from escalation—to undermine progress, as seen in the JCPOA’s collapse.

Persian poetry and Sufi traditions often depict conflict as a dance of opposites, where apparent enmity masks deeper interdependence—a metaphor that resonates with the Iran-US dynamic, where economic and cultural ties persist despite political ruptures. The concept of 'adab' (etiquette) in Islamic diplomacy emphasizes patience and indirectness, principles that could inform more sustainable negotiation strategies. Meanwhile, Western media’s focus on 'hard power' narratives overlooks the spiritual dimensions of resistance in Iran, where martyrdom narratives and Shiite theology shape public perceptions of sovereignty and defiance.

Scenario modeling suggests that without addressing structural drivers—such as the arms race in the Gulf, energy dependencies, and domestic political incentives for confrontation—the cycle of back-channel talks followed by public collapse will continue. A 'managed rivalry' model, where both states agree to de-escalate proxy conflicts while maintaining strategic ambiguity, could stabilize the region but requires buy-in from Gulf allies and China. Long-term, a regional security architecture (e.g., inspired by the OSCE) that includes Iran and Saudi Arabia may be necessary to break the stalemate, though current geopolitical alignments make this unlikely.

Marginalised voices in Iran—such as the Baha’i community, Kurdish activists, and women’s rights groups—are systematically excluded from diplomatic narratives despite bearing the brunt of sanctions and state repression. In the US, the framing of Iran as an existential threat obscures the role of military-industrial complexes and lobby groups that benefit from perpetual conflict, while Iranian-American communities face surveillance and discrimination. Regional minorities, such as Ahwazi Arabs or Balochis, are often instrumentalized in proxy wars, yet their grievances are rarely centered in peacebuilding discussions.