In response to President Donald Trump’s letter to Iran’s supreme leader proposing a new nuclear deal, Ali Khamenei’s stance was clear: rejection, dismissing it as “deception of public opinion.”
History has shown that under pressure, the regime often capitulates—what Iran’s leaders call “drinking the poisoned chalice.”
Yet, within the Iranian government, conflicting signals emerged, with some officials suggesting the offer was under consideration.
This strategic ambiguity is not new. Khamenei employed the same tactic during negotiations for the collapsed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), allowing him to distance himself from any fallout should the deal collapse.
History, however, has shown that under pressure, the regime often capitulates — what Iran’s leaders call “drinking the poisoned chalice.” But if a new deal does materialize, what would it mean for the people of Iran?
Legacy of the JCPOA
In 2018, President Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, the nuclear agreement brokered by President Barack Obama in 2015, claiming it “failed to protect America’s national security interests.”
Trump justified his withdrawal by arguing that the agreement, as “a windfall of cash,” did not curb Iran’s malign activities. Instead, it provided financial resources that “enriched the Iranian regime and enabled its malign behavior.”
For Iran’s non-Persian national and ethnic groups, the failure of the JCPOA was also due to its disregard for human rights and domestic oppression.
For Iran’s non-Persian national and ethnic groups, the failure of the JCPOA was also due to its disregard for human rights and domestic oppression. Western negotiators prioritized nuclear and missile restrictions and regional security while sidelining the suffering of the people under an authoritarian regime.
The economic relief from the deal landed in the hands of regime elites, particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its affiliates. Ordinary people saw little benefit. Instead, the regime doubled down on its crackdown against marginalized groups, including Kurds, Balochs, and Arabs.
With reduced external pressure, Tehran felt emboldened to impose its Persian-Shi’a ideological hegemony even more aggressively.
Will New Deal Serve the People?
Now, with talks of a renewed deal resurfacing, one must ask: will this agreement, like its predecessor, serve only the regime’s interests?
Trump’s letter outlined conditions for sanctions relief, including an end to Iran’s nuclear weapons program, cessation of uranium enrichment, ceasing financial support to Hezbollah and halting arms transfers to the Houthis, and dismantling its militias in Iraq.
Sanctions relief, while theoretically aimed at improving the economy, has instead fueled the regime’s military-industrial complex.
However, like before, these terms fail to address the human rights abuses within Iran. If a future deal ignores these realities, it will once again be the oppressed groups who bear the cost.
The absence of human rights considerations in Western negotiations with Iran is not incidental — it’s a consistent pattern. Historically, the West has prioritized short-term strategic gains over the long-term aspirations of the Iranian people.
The result has been a cycle of diplomatic engagements that empower the ruling elite while leaving everyday people in a deepening state of economic hardship and political repression.
Sanctions relief, while theoretically aimed at improving the economy, has instead fueled the regime’s military-industrial complex, allowing it to tighten its grip on power.
Consequences for Iran’s Minorities
For Iran’s diverse population — comprising Baluchis, Kurds, Armenians, Qashqais, Azeris, Arabs, Turkmens, Gilakis, Tabaris, Talyshis, and religious groups including Jews and Bahais — a nuclear deal that fails to address their plight could be devastating.
The regime’s persecution of non-Persian groups has involved disproportionate executions of Kurds and Baluchis, arbitrary detentions, and systematic cultural suppression.
The regime’s persecution of non-Persian groups has involved disproportionate executions of Kurds and Baluchis, arbitrary detentions, and systematic cultural suppression.
Economic marginalization has left these groups disproportionately affected by unemployment, poverty, and lack of access to basic services.
A deal that does not explicitly condition sanctions relief on improvements in human rights will serve as yet another tool for the government to sustain its policies of repression and forced assimilation.
Moreover, the suppression of dissent extends to students, journalists, and activists who have faced severe crackdowns for expressing opposition to the regime’s policies.
Comprehensive Approach to Diplomacy With Iran
This regime operates outside conventional norms, yet Western commentators in mainstream media continue to search for rational justifications that overlook the regime’s true nature instead of acknowledging the ideological and religious motives of Iran’s Shi’a rulers.
If history is any guide, a nuclear deal without guarantees for the people of Iran will reinforce the status quo: economic benefits funneled to regime elites, intensified repression of national and ethnic minorities, and continued expansion of Iran’s regional influence at the expense of its citizens.
Ultimately, the goal of any nuclear deal should be to create conditions that empower the people of Iran to pursue democratic aspirations.
A more “comprehensive” approach to diplomacy with Iran must incorporate human rights as a core negotiating principle. Strict oversight and accountability measures must be implemented to prevent state-controlled entities, such as the judiciary, from imposing verdicts on the people, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps from monopolizing financial resources and oppressing dissidents.
Furthermore, human rights organizations and genuine opposition figures — particularly from the Kurds, Baluchis, and Arabs — should have a voice in shaping the terms of any agreement.
Ultimately, the goal of any nuclear deal should be to create conditions that empower the people of Iran to pursue democratic aspirations. A policy that prioritizes human rights alongside the security of Israel and the US would be strategically effective in fostering long-term stability in the region.
