Why the United States and Iran Keep Fighting While They Negotiate

Iran and the United States are cycling through moments of fighting and calm. Every time one side shoots, commentators declare negotiations dead. They are wrong. For both sides, fighting at the same time as they are talking, or “talk-fight,” is the most effective way to advance their interests. Paradoxically, it is likely also the fastest path to peace.

The grandfather of grand strategy, Carl von Clausewitz, famously argued that war is a continuation of politics by other means. Violence and diplomacy are not opposite, but tools to be used toward the same goals. When Iran shoots at a tanker, and the United States hits Iranian port facilities, and Iran launches missiles at Gulf neighbors such as Kuwait and Qatar, they are very much engaging in political intercourse by means of violence. They are not halting negotiations but continuing them.

Talk-fight is a counterintuitive way to negotiate. The traditional view on negotiations goes something like this: Diplomats spend weeks, even months, attempting to get parties to agree to a ceasefire, usually with the mindset that a pause in fighting will allow the sides the space and time to negotiate a permanent end to the conflict. In reality, months are eaten up by discussions over preconditions and negotiating about negotiations. In one infamous example, the parties in the Vietnam War spent 10 weeks arguing over the shape of the table for the Paris talks. If the negotiations stall and someone shoots, the process starts again with tedious baby steps toward a ceasefire. This approach is slow and structurally quite fragile.

In many cases, both sides have little incentive for a ceasefire. The side with momentum on the battlefield hardly wants to squander it. And the other side that is losing often wants to keep fighting to achieve an elusive “position of strength” from which to negotiate. Those are undefinable and rarely arrive.

If, miraculously, a ceasefire arrives, the spoilers suddenly hold all the power. A rogue actor attempting to undermine negotiations, third party intervention, or a miscommunication or mistake can lead to renewed fighting. If you build negotiations on a wobbly base of barely contained violence, you are asking for disruption and trouble.

The alternative is talk-fight, which is de facto what we are seeing between the United States and Iran. Politics continues by both means simultaneously—war and conversation. Parties communicate with violence and also with diplomats. The violence demonstrates political will, displeasure, and positioning for additional concessions. The talking seeks acceptable ground for an end—a real end—to the fighting.

Iran and the United States have defaulted to talk-fight for pragmatic reasons. President Trump has said that Iranian hostility towards shipping will be met with overwhelming force—he is signaling U.S. resolve and overwhelming military might, and he is attempting to force Iran to bow to superior firepower with concessions. Iran, on the other hand, wants to remind the world that it can shut down the Strait of Hormuz any time it chooses and signal that time is in its favor. It wants to use that leverage to get the most favorable terms possible. Further, Iran has a reputation for being an exceptionally difficult negotiating partner. It has the patience to outwait its counterparts, the domestic power to ignore the suffering of its people, and a track record of winning negotiations. Thus, for both sides, exchanging fire is communicating, forcefully, their political interests, even while talks are ongoing.

Still, there are risks to this approach. Clearly, violence is far worse than peace for the affected population. In this case, the casualty count is relatively low, but too many have been civilians. Further, the global economy is suffering paroxysms of uncertainty from every wave of violence. War may send a strong message, but for the people, it is a destroyer of worlds.

For the parties, Tehran could overestimate Washington’s patience and unintentionally provoke a truly bruising U.S. response. Trump and key members of his administration have repeatedly expressed willingness to go after military-adjacent targets that would affect the local population, such as bridges and oil-related targets including Kharg Island, which could imperil any hope of economic recovery for years to come. The United States could underestimate Iranian resilience to continued attacks. For the Iranian regime, at least a perception that it won is essential to survival. It cares little if the global economy suffers—after all, thanks to a decades-long comprehensive sanctions regime, Iran is largely cut off from the global financial system anyway. Iran could very well outwait the United States, eager to see it sink money and munitions into this conflict. Their friends in Moscow and Beijing are happy to see it, too.

Commentators gravely state another risk: The fighting could escalate. This possibility is usually vastly overstated. Yes, each side could escalate in a talk-fight scenario, but that dynamic is less likely than when the fighting was intense and there were no negotiations ongoing. Just as there are incentives to fight, there are also incentives to contain the fighting.

Negotiations should continue with a stubborn resolve to be immune to disruption. These parties in particular will claw for advantage both at and away from the table, and both believe violence is a legitimate tool. The fastest way to achieve a real peace for the people of the Gulf and relative economic normalcy for the world is to talk on, no matter what.

Emily Harding is director of the Intelligence, National Security, and Technology Program and vice president of the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.