Istanbul: Recent demonstrations in Iran and evolving negotiations between Tehran and Washington reflect a complex dynamic in which both sides are preparing for potential confrontation while simultaneously seeking to avoid war, according to Middle East analyst and academic Vali Nasr.
According to Anadolu Agency, in an exclusive interview assessing the latest developments, Nasr told Anadolu that the protests that erupted in Iran were an enormous difference from previous waves of unrest, both in scale and political demands. 'I think the demonstrations we saw in Iran are different in two major ways. First is that the size, the scope, (and) the intensity of the protests was perhaps one of the largest that Iran has encountered since the 1979 revolution. And the protests were very, very clearly asking for an end to the Islamic Republic,' he said, adding that the demonstrations moved beyond economic grievances toward overt calls for regime change.
Nasr also highlighted a second distinguishing factor: unprecedented external political pressure accompanying the unrest. According to him, exile groups, often backed by Israel and the US, encouraged mass mobilization, while US President Donald Trump, 'for the first time for an American president, threatened to intervene militarily to support the protesters so that they can bring about regime change.'
Despite early threats, Nasr argued that Washington's recent actions suggest a preference for diplomacy over direct military escalation. He pointed to a period of heightened tension roughly two weeks earlier when Iran reportedly closed its airspace amid expectations of an imminent strike. 'The very fact that there was a window of opportunity about two weeks ago, where even Iranians closed their airspace, it was an expectation of an attack, he didn't do it,' Nasr said, referring to Trump. Instead, he noted, Washington began engaging regional actors, including Trkiye, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and Egypt, to establish a negotiating framework.
Nasr argued that both Iran and the US are leveraging the threat of military action as a negotiating tool. 'Both Iran and the US are preparing for war, but they don't want to go to war,' he said, noting that Washington's deployment of military assets functions as pressure while Tehran seeks to deter escalation by signaling the potential costs of conflict.
Comparing the current moment to US policy toward Iraq under Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, Nasr suggested Trump's strategy differs in intent. 'The negotiations were basically only there to, sort of, (act) as a step towards war. Whereas I think President Trump, seriously, is trying to avoid war,' he said, while acknowledging the president's unpredictability.
According to Nasr, Tehran's goals in current negotiations differ sharply from those during the 2015 nuclear talks. At that time, Iranian officials viewed diplomacy as a pathway to economic reintegration and development. 'I think now they're looking to an agreement in Moscow just to avoid war. Their expectations are much, much lower,' he said.
Nasr argued that both sides still retain bargaining leverage. Iranian leaders believe that Trump fears a 'messy war,' which could serve as a deterrent against full-scale military action, he added. He also questioned claims that Iran's nuclear program has been fully dismantled, noting that negotiations continue over sensitive issues such as enriched uranium stockpiles, International Atomic Energy Agency access, and limits on future enrichment.
Additional contentious topics include Iran's support for regional proxy groups, such as the Houthis and Hezbollah, and the future of its ballistic missile program, which Nasr described as Israel's primary security concern. While Tehran is unlikely to abandon missile capabilities entirely, he suggested it could consider restrictions on deployment or range as part of a negotiated compromise.