Editor's note: Wang Jin is the director of the Center of Strategic Studies at Northwest University. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Over the past decades, relations between the United States and Iran have been shaped by deep mistrust, strategic rivalry, and fundamentally different perceptions of regional security. Central to this confrontation has been the Washington's use of economic sanctions as a primary instrument of foreign policy. While Washington views sanctions as a necessary tool to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions and regional influence, Tehran interprets them as unjustified economic warfare aimed at weakening the Iranian state. The resulting confrontation has produced a prolonged diplomatic stalemate that continues to destabilize both Iran and the broader Middle East.

The U.S. has for many years maintained "maximum pressure" against Iran, relying primarily on comprehensive economic sanctions that target Iran's oil export chain, financial institutions, key economic entities, and a wide range of individuals associated with the Iranian government and commercial sectors. In addition to these direct measures, Washington has also imposed secondary sanctions and high tariffs on countries and companies that continue to conduct trade with Iran, thereby attempting to isolate the Iranian economy from the global market.

The U.S. sanctions against Iran have had a profound and long-lasting impact on Iran's economic structure, severely restricting its access to international financial systems, dramatically reducing its foreign exchange earnings, and undermining its ability to engage in normal international trade.

As a consequence, Iran has experienced persistent inflation, sharp currency devaluation, rising unemployment and an increasing poverty rate, all of which have combined to produce a prolonged economic recession and a deepening crisis in social welfare. From the Iranian perspective, these sanctions are the most important source of its current economic difficulties, and further weaken the state and increase social instability. The cumulative effect of these pressures has been to transform economic hardship into a structural and long-term challenge, one that cannot be resolved through domestic policy adjustments alone.

The sanctions from the U.S. not only weaken Iran's economic capabilities, but also shaken political trust towards U.S. Ending or at least substantially easing the sanctions regime and returning to the diplomatic framework established by the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) would represent an essential step creating conditions for constructive engagement. 

The U.S. justifies its sanctions against Iran by arguing that Tehran has failed to meet key international obligations, particularly through its suspension of full cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. From Washington's perspective, transparency and verification are essential for any credible nuclear arrangement, and Iran's restrictions on inspections have undermined confidence in its commitments. American policymakers also contend that the 2015 nuclear agreement was fundamentally incomplete because it addressed only Iran's nuclear program while ignoring two critical issues – Iran's missile development and its regional policies. After 2015, the U.S. believes that Iran rapidly expanded the range and precision of its missile capabilities, creating new threats to American allies and military bases in the Middle East.

In addition, Washington views Iran's regional strategy as a major source of instability. U.S. officials argue that Tehran's supports for groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Iraqi Shia militias and the Yemen Houthis, have intensified conflicts and endangered regional partners. As a result, the U.S. insists that any revised diplomatic framework must impose stricter limits on Iran's missile program and regional behavior, using sanctions as leverage to achieve these goals.

Iran, however, places primary responsibility for the current crisis on the U.S. Tehran argues that Washington undermined the 2015 agreement by unilaterally withdrawing and reimposing sweeping sanctions, thereby destroying mutual trust and making continued cooperation impossible. From the Iranian viewpoint, Washington's pressure has weakened international consensus and increased regional tensions rather than resolving them. Consequently, Iran maintains that the only realistic path forward is a return to the original nuclear agreement and the lifting of sanctions, which it believes would restore diplomatic momentum and create conditions for broader negotiations.

Regardless of the validity of these competing claims, it is clear that the unilateral approach adopted by the U.S. has failed to produce the desired results. Instead of compelling Iran to make concessions, maximum pressure has contributed to greater regional tension, reduced the space for moderates within Iran, and encouraged Tehran to gradually distance itself from the commitments it had previously accepted. Moreover, economic coercion has not only affected the Iranian government but has also inflicted severe suffering on ordinary citizens, thereby reinforcing nationalist sentiments and hardening public attitudes against the U.S.

For these reasons, relying exclusively on pressure and punishment is unlikely to resolve the Iran nuclear issue or to address broader concerns about regional security. A more realistic and sustainable approach would require renewed diplomacy, direct dialogue and a gradual rebuilding of mutual confidence. Constructive negotiations that recognize the legitimate interests and security concerns of both sides offer the only viable path toward a comprehensive solution.