Faulty Assumptions About Iran Have Driven a Failed U.S. Policy

Foreign Policy ^ | 01/15/2026 | Steven A. Cook and Eni Enrico Mattei

[SeekAndFind]

Iran is once again on fire. For the better part of the last month, Iranians have been taking to the streets in large numbers to demand change. The proximate cause for the protests was spiraling inflation, but as the crowds grew, Iranians clamored for the end of the Islamic regime.

Despite the avalanche of speculation, no one knows what will happen in Iran. That is the nature of popular uprisings, they are unpredictable. To many analysts, journalists, pundits, and academics, this round of protests feels different from previous ones in 2009, 2017, 2019, and 2022—and maybe they are. Or maybe they just seem that way because the policy community has failed for decades to understand the nature of the Islamic Republic.

The stakes are so high in Iran that even with protesters still out on the streets and the outcome of the current uprising unknown, it is a good time for analysts to reexamine the assumptions that have been the foundation of Washington’s failed approach to the country—and not just Washington’s but the West’s more generally. My goal is not to name and shame.

There’s so much of that online that it’s hard to learn from past mistakes, bad assumptions, and new information. It is particularly important for the foreign-policy community to update its assumptions now because Iran is changing. Even if the regime does not fall, the country will be different from what it was like on Dec. 28, 2025, the day the protests began.

So, what were the assumptions that formed the basis of the United States’ approach to Iran over the last three decades? Iran was believed to be pragmatic. The revolutionary ardor of its leadership was actually a rhetorical cover for an Iran that was practical and realistic.

---

TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Hamas; Hezbollah; Iran; Iraq; Lebanon; News/Current Events; Qatar; Syria; War on Terror; Yemen
KEYWORDS: ayatollahs; hamas; hezbollah; iran; iraq; islamofascism; islamofascists; koranimals; lebanon; qatar; syria; yemen

[SeekAndFind]

This framing led to the notion that Iran’s leaders were susceptible to American, or Western, diplomacy and financial incentives.

Unfortunately, Believing that the clerical regime could be pragmatic was a mistake.

[lightman]

Some peoples and tribes—we only artificially call them “nations”—have only known strong man authoritarianism for their entire history spanning a score or more of centuries.

Only the very naive would believe that those formed by the rule of Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, the Pavlavis, and the Ayatollahs would instantly be ready for a Western democratic republic.

[Liz]

Based on his published works, analyses, and position at the CFR, Steven A. Cook is a pro-Israel voice wrt American foreign policy, an analyst who strives to connect US interests to actions which protect “Israeli security.”

[DesertRhino]

Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected Prime minister and served there until the CIA overthrew him on behalf of the Brits.
They were ready for a republic since before WWI.
But when they tried to increase the power of the Parliament over the monarchs... the Brits called us and we overthrow him and reinstalled the Shah as an absolute monarch.

[rxh4n1]

The Shah was overthrown in 1979 because he was trying to modernize Iran. 1953 is not relevant.Mossadegh was a Marxist, not a religious fanatic.

[ifinnegan]

This article is by Steven A. Cook.

Why did you post it here attributed to Steven A. Cook and Eni Enrico Mattei?

[ifinnegan]

Ok Adolf.

[Liz]

Stupid.

[ifinnegan]

A lot of posts here propagate old and new communist dogma.

They are an infectious disease here

[ifinnegan]

Yes your bizarre post about Israel was. Don’t forget to wear your burqa.

[Liz]

Goodness gracious me, a slap-down for pointing out Israeli supporters?

You’d think that “paragon of virtue”——the plus-perfect state of Israel
-—would be pleased about yet a-n-o-t-h-e-r hidden supporter surfacing.