The Deal Without the Hostages
While governments negotiated with the Islamic Republic, the families who buried its victims remained outside the room.
There are moments when politics becomes so detached from human suffering that it begins to resemble a theatre performed above a graveyard. Presidents give speeches. Diplomats shake hands. Analysts debate strategy. Television screens fill with maps, arrows, sanctions, enrichment percentages and shipping routes. Yet somewhere in Iran, a mother sits alone in a room unable to wash her dead child's shirt because it is the last thing that still carries a trace of the life she once held in her arms.
For nearly half a century, the Islamic Republic has ruled Iran through fear, censorship, imprisonment, executions and ideological control. Entire generations have grown up knowing no other government. Millions have learned to lower their voices, to distrust strangers, to fear a knock at the door in the middle of the night. Families have watched loved ones disappear into prisons, return broken, or never return at all. Yet despite all of this, the world continues to approach Iran as though the country and the regime are the same thing, as though eighty million people can somehow be represented by the very system that has spent decades denying them freedom.
This is what makes the latest negotiations so painful for many Iranians. Once again, governments gathered to discuss Iran's future. Once again, the conversation revolved around uranium, missiles, sanctions, regional security and the Strait of Hormuz. Once again, those who have paid the highest price were absent from the room. No political prisoner sat at the table. No mother whose son was executed sat at the table. No young woman blinded during protests sat at the table. The regime was represented. Its victims were not.
Perhaps this reflects a deeper problem in the way the world talks about Iran. There are, in reality, two entirely different conversations taking place.
The first conversation occurs in Washington, Jerusalem, Brussels, London and the United Nations. It revolves around nuclear enrichment, proxy militias, missile programmes, oil flows, maritime security and regional stability. It is the language of states, diplomats and strategic planners. Israel naturally sees Iran through this lens because Israel experiences the consequences directly. Rockets, proxy forces and repeated threats are not abstract concepts for Israelis. They are security concerns that shape daily life. Western governments, meanwhile, focus on sanctions, deterrence and non-proliferation because these are the tools through which they understand international order.
The second conversation takes place inside Iranian homes. That conversation is about prisons. It is about torture. It is about corruption. It is about poverty. It is about fathers visiting graves instead of weddings. It is about mothers preserving photographs because photographs are all they have left.
The tragedy is not that the first conversation exists. The tragedy is that the second conversation so often disappears beneath it.
When Barack Obama negotiated the JCPOA, many Western observers saw diplomacy. They saw a complicated attempt to reduce nuclear risk and prevent another war in the Middle East. Supporters viewed the agreement as a practical compromise with an unpleasant but necessary partner.
Many Iranian dissidents saw something entirely different. They saw recognition. They saw legitimacy. They saw the world quietly accepting that the Islamic Republic was here to stay.
The debate in Western capitals focused on centrifuges and uranium. The debate in Iranian homes focused on prisons and executions. The two sides were often discussing completely different things while using the same words.
Years later, Donald Trump criticised the agreement and promised a different path. Many Iranians listened carefully. Americans heard a politician. Many Iranians heard something else. They heard a signal.
For decades they had watched Western leaders condemn the regime while continuing to negotiate with it. Now they heard stronger language. They heard condemnation. They heard declarations that the world recognised their suffering. They heard repeated criticism of a regime they had spent their entire lives enduring.
Whether that was the intention is almost beside the point. What matters is what people heard. A people trapped inside an authoritarian system for nearly half a century will always hear hope differently from those who are free.
When prisoners hear footsteps outside a cell, they imagine liberation. When the abandoned hear their names spoken, they imagine rescue. When the forgotten hear that someone powerful finally recognises their suffering, they begin to hope that history may be changing direction. Hope is a dangerous thing under dictatorship.
Many Iranians believed they were approaching a turning point. Some believed the world was finally prepared to confront the regime. Some believed the sacrifices of those killed in previous protests had not been forgotten. Some believed that if they stood up one more time, they would not stand alone.
Instead, years later, many find themselves looking at a familiar landscape. The regime remains. The prisons remain. The executions remain. The fear remains. The rulers remain. The negotiations remain.
This is why the recent agreement has felt so demoralising to many dissidents. After years of fierce arguments about Obama versus Trump, diplomacy versus pressure, engagement versus isolation, many ordinary Iranians are asking a devastatingly simple question.
What has fundamentally changed for the people living under the Islamic Republic?
If one administration negotiated with the regime and another administration eventually returned to negotiations with the regime, then from the perspective of a mother who buried her child, what exactly was the difference?
This question became even sharper when attention shifted once again toward oil markets and the Strait of Hormuz. Around the world, commentators discussed shipping routes, energy security and the movement of tankers. Yet for many Iranians, the symbolism was impossible to ignore. The world appeared capable of summoning extraordinary urgency when oil was threatened, while demonstrating remarkable patience when human beings were threatened.
Adding to this sense of frustration was the role of Pakistan as an intermediary in the latest diplomatic efforts. For many Iranians, the symbolism was difficult to ignore. A country struggling with its own poverty, instability, emigration and governance challenges was helping facilitate negotiations with a regime that has spent nearly half a century impoverishing another nation. Across both countries, talented young people often leave in search of opportunities elsewhere. Across both countries, ordinary citizens frequently feel trapped between political narratives and everyday realities. Yet once again governments spoke to governments while ordinary people remained spectators to decisions shaping their future.
The deeper issue, however, extends beyond any individual country or leader. It points toward a weakness in the international system itself.
International law is reasonably good at recognising aggression between states. It is far less capable of responding when a government becomes the primary threat to its own population. The world knows how to react when one country invades another. It struggles when a regime slowly consumes its own people while retaining international recognition. This may be the central tragedy of Iran. The regime's largest graveyard is inside Iran itself. Its greatest victims are overwhelmingly Iranian. Its most profound destruction has been inflicted upon the very population it claims to represent. Yet international attention often arrives only when instability crosses a border. By the time the world begins discussing missiles, uranium and regional security, generations of Iranians have already paid the price.
Recently another story emerged that seemed to capture the condition of modern Iran in a single image. Armenian customs officials intercepted a shipment of human hair being smuggled from Iran. Social media quickly filled with rumours and speculation. There is no verified evidence connecting the hair to political prisoners or murdered protesters. Yet the verified reality is disturbing enough. Reports have documented growing numbers of Iranian women selling their hair because economic hardship has become so severe that even parts of their own bodies have become sources of income.
Imagine the symbolism of that reality. A nation sitting on immense natural wealth. A civilisation that once dreamed of scientific advancement, prosperity and modernisation. And yet some of its daughters are cutting away their hair so their families can survive. The sacrifice is always demanded from ordinary people. Never from those in power.
For many Iranians in exile, these events awaken older memories. They remember another departure from Iran, one that remains controversial but emotionally significant. They remember an ageing monarch leaving the country in January 1979 while millions celebrated what they believed would be a new beginning. Whatever one's political opinion of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, many Iranians now look back and wonder whether they misunderstood what they were witnessing. Stories later emerged that soil from Iran was found among his belongings during exile. Whether every detail of those stories can be verified matters less than what they represent. Millions of exiles understand exactly why such stories endure.
Exile teaches a person that a homeland is not merely territory.
It becomes memory. Language. Longing. Grief. And love.
Today many Iranians place their hopes in Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi not because they wish to recreate the past exactly as it was, but because they are searching for a future in which Iran belongs once again to its people rather than to those who hold it hostage.
Perhaps the deepest lesson of all extends beyond Iran itself. Across much of the world, people increasingly feel that something has gone wrong. Young adults struggle to buy homes. Families postpone marriage and children. Debt rises. Trust declines. Politics increasingly resembles performance. Technology advances while meaning retreats. Citizens look at institutions that once promised security and wonder whether those institutions still know how to serve them.
Whenever societies enter such moments, they begin searching for symbols of return.
Iran experienced such a moment in 1979. Ayatollah Khomeini arrived not merely as a religious figure but as a symbol of return. He promised a return to authenticity, dignity, justice and belonging. Millions projected their hopes onto that promise.
History teaches us that longing for return is not enough. The destination matters. A return can lead to renewal. A return can also lead to catastrophe.
Today the world once again appears suspended between uncertainty and transformation. Across continents, people increasingly distrust institutions, elites and political systems. The language differs from country to country, but the emotion feels remarkably similar.
Something has been lost. Something must be restored. The question facing our century is not whether another symbol of return will emerge. The question is what kind of return it will offer. Will it promise power? Will it promise vengeance? Will it promise nostalgia? Or will it promise something more fundamental?
Because after decades of repression, negotiations, sanctions, wars, broken promises and forgotten graves, perhaps the deepest cry emerging from Iran is not a cry for another agreement or another political slogan.
It is the cry captured in a single line by Jalāl ad-Dīn Muḥammad Rūmī:
انسانم آرزوست
I long for a human being.
And perhaps that is what the mothers holding those unwashed clothes long for as well. Not another negotiation. Not another geopolitical framework. Not another carefully managed arrangement between governments.
Simply a world capable of remembering that nations are made of people, and that no agreement can truly succeed while the prisoners remain outside the room and the jailor speaks in their name.
Continue reading
Related essays
Part IV: Who Speaks For Iran?
The deeper question raised by this series is not whether Iran is misunderstood. The deeper question is who benefits from that misunderstanding. As ordinary Iranians struggle to make their voices heard above the noise of geopolitics, ideology and competing narratives, a simple question remains unanswered: who has the right to speak for a nation they do not have to live in?
Part III: The Narratives That Replace Iran
For decades, the Islamic Republic has mastered a remarkable political achievement: persuading much of the world to discuss its enemies more often than its victims. While international attention focuses on regional conflicts, ordinary Iranians continue to bear the costs of repression, economic decline and political exclusion. This chapter examines how Iran disappears behind the narratives constructed around it—and who benefits when that happens.
Part II: Was Iran Invited Only to Discuss Israel?
The event was called Understanding Iran, yet as the discussion unfolded, Iran increasingly became the backdrop rather than the subject. Israel was analysed. Palestine was analysed. Regional conflicts were analysed. Meanwhile, the voices of ordinary Iranians faded into the background. This chapter asks a simple question: was Iran invited to the conversation, or merely used as a stage for other narratives?