Why the United States and Iran Keep Fighting While They Negotiate

Center for Strategic and International Studies  |  Emily Harding

Iran and the United States are actively employing a "talk-fight" strategy, utilizing simultaneous military strikes and diplomatic channels to secure leverage in ongoing bilateral negotiations. This dual-track approach rejects traditional ceasefire-first diplomacy, treating localized violence not as a negotiation spoiler but as a direct medium for communicating political resolve and redlines.

Historically, conventional diplomatic pauses often stall over procedural preconditions, whereas concurrent military friction forces both adversaries to continuously clarify their actual thresholds for concessions. While Washington leverages overwhelming conventional military superiority to signal deterrence, Tehran exploits its asymmetric capability to disrupt shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz to offset economic pressure. However, this high-stakes bargaining model risks severe miscalculation, particularly if American strikes target critical Iranian infrastructure like the Kharg Island oil terminal, or if the regime misjudges Washington's long-term operational patience amidst global economic disruptions. Consequently, both capitals are likely to sustain this volatile equilibrium, balancing tactical aggression with backchannel diplomacy to avoid total war.

Comment

The simultaneous deployment of kinetic strikes alongside backchannel diplomacy represents a formalised bargaining doctrine for the Islamic Republic of Iran. By targeting shipping near the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran uses controlled escalation to shape its negotiating leverage. This approach assumes Washington will tolerate localised disruption rather than strike critical infrastructure like the Kharg Island oil terminal. Consequently, the efficacy of this Iranian doctrine depends entirely on preventing American retaliation from triggering a devastating conventional response.

To read in details click here