'Iran Thinks It's In The Driver's Seat' In Talks With U.S.: Former Top Middle East Peace Negotiator

Iran Believes It Holds the Upper Hand in Nuclear Negotiations With the U.S.

As diplomatic back-and-forth between Washington and Tehran continues to capture global attention, one of America's most seasoned Middle East diplomats is raising a critical alarm. Ambassador Dennis Ross, who has played a central role in Middle East peace negotiations across multiple U.S. administrations, appeared on Forbes Newsroom to deliver a sobering assessment: Iran currently believes it is sitting in the driver's seat when it comes to nuclear talks with the United States.

This perception of leverage — whether grounded in reality or not — has profound implications for the trajectory of negotiations, regional security, and the broader geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. Understanding why Tehran feels emboldened, and what that means for U.S. foreign policy, requires a closer look at the dynamics Ross outlined and the historical context surrounding these high-stakes talks.

Who Is Ambassador Dennis Ross?

Dennis Ross is not a casual observer of Middle Eastern affairs. He has served in senior diplomatic and advisory roles under Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, accumulating decades of firsthand experience navigating some of the world's most intractable conflicts. His work has spanned Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts, Gulf security frameworks, and direct engagement with Iranian officials on nuclear-related matters.

When Ross speaks about the psychology of Iranian negotiators and the strategic calculations driving Tehran's decisions, his words carry the weight of someone who has sat across the table from these counterparts — and walked away understanding just how complex and ideologically driven Iranian foreign policy truly is.

Why Does Iran Think It's In the Driver's Seat?

According to Ross, Iran's sense of confidence in the current round of negotiations stems from several converging factors. The Islamic Republic has watched the international sanctions architecture weaken over recent years, with enforcement inconsistencies allowing Tehran to continue selling oil — particularly to China — generating revenues that cushion the economic blow that Washington hoped would force concessions.

Beyond economics, Iran has significantly advanced its nuclear program since the collapse of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Iranian officials have publicly stated that the country now enriches uranium to 60% purity — dangerously close to weapons-grade levels — and has amassed enough enriched material that the so-called "breakout time" to produce a nuclear weapon has shrunk dramatically. This technical progress gives Tehran a powerful bargaining chip at any negotiating table.

Additionally, Iran reads the current U.S. political environment carefully. With American attention divided across multiple global flashpoints — including the war in Ukraine, tensions in the Indo-Pacific, and domestic political pressures — Tehran may calculate that Washington is more eager to reach a deal than it is. That perception of U.S. urgency, whether accurate or exaggerated, feeds Iran's confidence that it can negotiate from a position of strength.

The Danger of Misread Leverage

Ross was careful to underscore that Iran's belief in its own leverage does not necessarily make that leverage real or durable. History is littered with examples of nations that overestimated their bargaining position and walked away from negotiations only to face far worse outcomes later. The danger, as Ross framed it, is that a miscalculation on Iran's part could either derail talks entirely or push the region closer to a military confrontation — an outcome that nobody in the international community wants.

The U.S. and its regional allies, particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia, have made clear that a nuclear-armed Iran represents a red line. If diplomatic efforts fail and Iran continues its trajectory toward weapons-grade enrichment, the military option — long considered a last resort — moves closer to the forefront of policy discussions. Iran's strategic planners are aware of this calculus, yet their behavior suggests they believe they can continue pushing boundaries without triggering a decisive response.

What Does a Viable Deal Look Like?

For any agreement to take shape, both sides must answer fundamental questions that have haunted these negotiations for years. Key sticking points include:

• The scope of sanctions relief: Iran demands comprehensive removal of sanctions, while U.S. negotiators seek a phased approach tied to verifiable compliance.
• Enrichment caps: Washington wants strict limits on uranium enrichment levels and stockpile sizes; Tehran insists on maintaining what it calls a peaceful nuclear program.
• Verification mechanisms: Robust International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspection rights remain a non-negotiable demand from the U.S. side, while Iran has historically resisted what it sees as invasive oversight.
• Duration of the agreement: Any deal must address how long restrictions remain in place and what happens when sunset clauses expire — a lesson painfully learned from the flaws of the original JCPOA.

Ross suggested that without clear answers to these questions, any agreement risks being a temporary arrangement that neither side fully trusts — potentially making the situation more dangerous in the medium term rather than less.

Regional Implications and the Broader Stakes

The outcome of U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations reverberates far beyond the two countries directly involved. A successful, verifiable agreement could stabilize energy markets, reduce the risk of regional war, and create space for broader diplomatic engagement on issues like Iranian support for proxy forces in Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria. A failed negotiation, on the other hand, could accelerate nuclear proliferation pressures across the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia and others potentially reconsidering their own nuclear postures.

Israel, which has conducted covert operations against Iran's nuclear infrastructure in the past, watches every development closely. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government has consistently argued that any deal falling short of a full dismantlement of Iran's nuclear capabilities is unacceptable — a position that keeps an independent Israeli military strike on the table as a wild card capable of upending the entire diplomatic process at any moment.

The Road Ahead: Diplomacy Under Pressure

Ambassador Ross's warning that Iran perceives itself as holding the strategic advantage is ultimately a call to action for U.S. policymakers. Effective diplomacy in this environment requires demonstrating credible resolve — making clear that the costs of non-agreement for Tehran will outweigh the benefits of maintaining the status quo. That means consistent sanctions enforcement, sustained military readiness in the region, and close coordination with European and regional partners to present a unified front.

At the same time, the U.S. must offer something genuinely attractive to Iranian decision-makers: a pathway out of economic isolation that is realistic enough to be taken seriously, yet structured in a way that guarantees verifiable compliance. Striking that balance is extraordinarily difficult, but it remains the only realistic alternative to a far more dangerous outcome.

As Ross concluded in his Forbes Newsroom appearance, the history of these negotiations teaches one enduring lesson — the moment either side becomes convinced it has nothing to lose from walking away is the moment the risk of catastrophic miscalculation becomes truly acute. Preventing that outcome requires wisdom, patience, and above all, an accurate reading of where the actual leverage lies.