Peiman Salehi – Political Analyst & Writer

Author: Peiman Salehi
*Originally published on: Global Research

Introduction: Liberalism at War with Itself

The modern liberal tradition, as envisioned by thinkers like John Locke, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill, was supposed to champion freedom, self-determination, and non-intervention.

Yet U.S. foreign policy—especially toward countries like Iran—often violates these very ideals. Sanctions that deprive civilians of medicine, unilateral strikes that defy international consensus, and economic coercion that targets sovereign infrastructure reveal a contradiction: American liberalism, in practice, has become a global apparatus of control.

What happens when a liberal superpower behaves illiberally?

For Iran, the answer is clear: there can be no sustainable negotiation with a country that does not abide by its own professed values.

Liberalism as Rhetoric, Not Restraint

In Locke’s vision, the state exists to protect life, liberty, and property. When it violates those rights, citizens have a moral right to resist. Yet the United States, under the banner of democracy promotion, routinely imposes sanctions that deny life-saving goods, restrict sovereign trade, and devastate public health systems. Adam Smith’s ideal of the free market has been replaced by a system in which Washington determines which nations may participate in global commerce.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the U.S. approach to Iran. Since 2018, when Washington unilaterally exited the JCPOA, Iran has faced economic warfare under the guise of diplomacy. The sanctions have choked its banking system, deterred academic exchange, and blocked imports of critical medicine. Far from being instruments of peace, these measures resemble the very coercive imperial practices that classical liberalism once opposed.

Diplomacy without Trust: The Iran–U.S. Negotiation Trap

Iran does not reject diplomacy—but it rejects negotiations based on force and double standards. From Tehran’s perspective, America uses the nuclear file as a tactical pressure point, not as an avenue for genuine compromise. Even when dialogue resumes, new conditions emerge: Iran’s missile program, its regional alliances, its ideological commitments. These are not technical concerns—they’re attempts to reshape Iran’s strategic identity.

In this context, diplomacy becomes management—not resolution. The U.S. seeks to contain Iran, not coexist with it. Leaders in Tehran understand this dynamic. As Iranian officials have noted repeatedly, the real goal of sanctions is not to modify behavior but to erode autonomy.

This is where the epistemic divide becomes clear: Iran sees sovereignty and civilizational dignity as non-negotiable. The U.S., guided by liberal universalism, expects conformity. It’s not just a political dispute—it’s a clash of worldviews.

When Philosophy Meets Policy Failure

The problem is not that liberalism is inherently flawed, but that it has been weaponized by policymakers who reduce it to slogans. Human rights become tools of regime change. Free trade becomes an instrument of siege. Rule of law is applied selectively. The philosophical foundation of Western liberalism—pluralism, mutual respect, and limits on power—has been hollowed out.

Iran’s resistance, therefore, is not simply defiance. It is a demand that diplomacy be rooted in mutual respect, not hierarchy. It insists that engagement occur on equal terms, not through coercive leverage disguised as negotiation.

Conclusion: A New Model for International Engagement

If the United States is serious about diplomacy, it must reconcile its global actions with its philosophical roots. That means moving beyond economic punishment as a default tool of statecraft. It means respecting the sovereignty of states that operate outside the liberal consensus. And it means acknowledging that in a multipolar world, no single model of governance should be imposed as universal.

As long as liberalism is practiced selectively—applied to friends and denied to rivals—the world will see through the hypocrisy. The Iran nuclear talks will remain stalled, not because diplomacy is impossible, but because real diplomacy cannot grow in soil poisoned by mistrust.