Iranian negotiators operate under a strict mandate from the Supreme National Security Council and Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei [1].
This structural divide creates friction between Tehran and Washington because the two nations utilize fundamentally different methods of authorization and diplomacy. While Iran relies on a rigid, centralized hierarchy, the U.S. approach under President Trump is characterized by a smaller circle of personal advisors.
In Iran, the decision-making process is designed to ensure that negotiators adhere to a specific framework approved by the Supreme Leader [1]. The Supreme National Security Council sets these parameters, leaving little room for individual discretion during talks [1, 2]. This system is intended to maintain ideological consistency, and national security priorities across all diplomatic engagements [2].
Conversely, the U.S. negotiation team consists primarily of personal confidants of President Trump [1]. This team operates with fewer technical experts than traditional diplomatic delegations [1]. Because the U.S. president can intervene directly and change directions quickly, Iranian officials said these shifts are "moving the goalposts" [1].
These conflicting styles have led to a dilemma in Tehran. Negotiators who are bound by a fixed mandate find it difficult to adapt to the fluid and personal nature of the Trump administration's diplomacy [3]. The lack of a technical buffer in the U.S. team means that policy shifts can happen abruptly, creating a gap between the two sides' expectations of how a deal is reached [1, 2].
Tehran views the U.S. strategy as unpredictable. The Iranian side said that a stable agreement requires a consistent set of parameters, whereas the U.S. side prefers a more flexible, leader-driven approach [1, 3].
“Iranian negotiators follow a mandate set by the Supreme National Security Council.”
The friction between Iran's bureaucratic, mandate-driven diplomacy and the Trump administration's personality-driven approach creates a systemic barrier to agreement. When one side cannot deviate from a pre-approved script and the other side frequently alters the terms of engagement, the likelihood of a sustainable long-term treaty decreases.
