Breaking the deadlock requires coordinated, verifiable concessions, not demands for one side to act first.
For nearly two decades, one question has haunted Iran-US diplomacy: Who should move first? Since the early 2000s, Washington and Tehran have repeatedly faced the same dilemma: Should Iran limit its nuclear activities before receiving economic relief, or should the United States ease pressure before expecting Iranian concessions? Yet the latest diplomatic crisis suggests that these may no longer be the right questions.
The real challenge is not who moves first. It is whether both sides can move together.
This question has become urgent again amid the latest dispute over the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran has proposed reopening the waterway if Washington meets a series of conditions, including lifting the naval blockade, easing sanctions and providing guarantees against renewed attacks. Tehran argues that negotiations cannot begin under conditions of pressure and confrontation. Washington, however, insists that any renewed diplomatic process must address the nuclear issue from the beginning.
This disagreement represents the central problem of the current negotiations: both sides are demanding confidence-building measures before…