This conversation reveals that the pursuit of immediate solutions in complex geopolitical situations, particularly concerning Iran, often overlooks critical downstream consequences. The obvious responses, like diplomatic engagement with the regime or expecting rapid change, fail to account for the systemic inertia and the potential for prolonged suffering. The hidden implication is that genuine, lasting change requires a long-term strategy focused on empowering civil society and understanding nuanced internal dynamics, a path that demands patience and a willingness to endure short-term discomfort for significant future gains. This is essential reading for policymakers, analysts, and anyone invested in understanding the complexities of international relations, offering an advantage by highlighting the pitfalls of short-sighted approaches and the enduring power of sustained, people-centric engagement.

The Electrifying Moment: Unpacking the Systemic Roots of Iran's Protests

In the complex theater of international affairs, the most visible actions often obscure the deeper currents that shape events. When considering the recent wave of protests in Iran, the immediate impulse is to focus on the pronouncements of governments, the pronouncements of dissidents, or the immediate, often violent, responses of the regime. However, as journalist Jason Rezaian articulates in this conversation, the obvious answers--whether they involve swift diplomatic intervention or the expectation of immediate regime collapse--are insufficient. What is systematically missed are the intricate, long-term consequences of decisions made in the present, and the subtle yet powerful systemic dynamics that dictate the pace and nature of change. This conversation peels back the layers, revealing how a focus on immediate outcomes can inadvertently prolong suffering and delay the very change desired, highlighting the critical advantage gained by those who can perceive and act upon these deeper, often uncomfortable, truths.

Why the Obvious Fixes Fail to Ignite Lasting Change

The current protests in Iran, which have evolved from economic discontent into a broader anti-government movement, possess a distinct quality that resonates with those who have long observed the country. Jason Rezaian, who endured imprisonment in Iran, notes a palpable shift: "the velocity between protest movements in Iran is quickening." He traces this acceleration from the Green Movement of 2009, through the more regionally focused protests of 2017-18 and 2019, to the current "Woman, Life, Freedom" movement, arguably the largest to date. This progression suggests a system under increasing strain, where the regime's inability to address fundamental demands for a freer society and a better financial future is becoming starkly apparent. Rezaian observes, "it seems like the expiration date of this nearly 50-year-old system is quickly approaching."

Yet, the path toward this potential expiration is fraught with peril, and external actors, particularly the United States, have historically misstepped in their approach to fostering change. Rezaian points to a recurring failure: "we've rarely followed through on the things that we have promised to do." This lack of follow-through creates a vacuum, leaving the people of Iran to bear the brunt of repression without consistent, tangible support. The immediate focus on internet shutdowns, for instance, is a critical issue, yet the necessary legislative and executive actions to ensure continued access--such as congressional votes or White House executive orders--often stall. This delay, while seemingly bureaucratic, has profound downstream effects. It isolates the population, hinders communication, and amplifies the regime's control, creating a hidden cost to inaction that compounds over time.

The conventional wisdom in Washington often defaults to established diplomatic channels or pronouncements of support. However, Rezaian argues for a fundamental shift: "there are very few people in Washington or other global capitals that have um relevant recent experience inside of Iran." This lack of grounded, contemporary understanding leads policymakers to rely on outdated perspectives or voices that may not accurately reflect the current on-the-ground dynamics. The consequence is a disconnect between stated intentions and effective action, a disconnect that the Iranian system, with its inherent resilience and adaptive strategies, can easily exploit. The immediate benefit of appearing decisive through diplomatic statements is thus overshadowed by the downstream effect of misdirected efforts and missed opportunities to genuinely empower civil society.

The Hidden Cost of Immediate Engagement

Rezaian's advocacy for engagement is not a call for appeasement, but for a strategic recalibration of focus. He states, "I have always been somebody who's incredibly pro engagement... I think talking to our adversaries is very important." However, he crucially distinguishes this from "acquiescing to their demands or giving into them." The mistake, he implies, is engaging with the regime on issues like the nuclear program, which allows the existing power structure to dictate the terms of interaction and potentially deflect attention from the internal aspirations of the Iranian people. This approach offers an immediate sense of diplomatic activity but fails to address the root causes of instability and discontent.

The more impactful, albeit less immediately gratifying, engagement, Rezaian suggests, should be "centered on the people of Iran and their aspirations." This requires building bridges with individuals and groups within Iran, understanding their perspectives, and supporting their efforts for a "stable Iran with an open economy -- and an open society." The immediate discomfort for policymakers here lies in the difficulty of identifying and connecting with credible voices on the ground, and the lengthy process of building trust and understanding. This is precisely the kind of effort that conventional diplomacy often bypasses in favor of more readily accessible, but ultimately less effective, state-to-state interactions.

The downstream effect of prioritizing regime engagement over people-centric support is a perpetuation of the status quo. The regime gains leverage by being the sole recognized interlocutor, while the potential for organic, sustainable change from within is stifled. This creates a feedback loop: the regime's continued grip on power reinforces the perception that only state-level negotiations are possible, further marginalizing civil society and prolonging the period of repression. The system, in this scenario, effectively routes around superficial engagement, consolidating its power by controlling the narrative and the channels of communication.

The 10-Year Wait: Reflections on Delayed Gratification

The tenth anniversary of Rezaian's release from Iranian prison casts a poignant shadow over the current moment. It's a decade marked by his wife's exile and the uncertain prospect of return. This personal milestone underscores a broader truth about systemic change: it is rarely swift. "I'm proud -- I'm exhilarated -- but I'm scared -- about the loss of life and also about you know the very real possibility that if this regime falls there's no guarantee that -- something better would automatically replace it." This candid admission highlights the systemic risk associated with rapid, destabilizing change. The immediate, electrifying moment of protest, while powerful, must be contextualized within a longer arc of historical development.

Rezaian's hope for returning to Iran is tempered by the reality that "we'd be much further along in these conversations 10 years ago than we actually are." This temporal perspective is crucial. It suggests that the "electrifying moment" is not an endpoint, but a phase within a protracted struggle. The conventional approach, which seeks quick resolutions, fails to appreciate the deep-seated nature of the Iranian regime and the slow, arduous process of societal transformation. The immediate benefit of swift action is often illusory, masking the downstream consequence of prolonging the very conditions that necessitate protest.

The true competitive advantage, as Rezaian's experience and analysis suggest, lies in sustained, patient engagement with the people of Iran and a long-term vision for their aspirations. This requires acknowledging that genuine progress may not be visible for years, even decades. The discomfort of investing in relationships and understanding without immediate, quantifiable results is a barrier that many actors are unwilling to overcome. Those who can endure this period of delayed gratification, however, are better positioned to support meaningful and lasting change when the opportune moment finally arrives. They are not merely reacting to an "electrifying moment," but actively cultivating the conditions for a more stable and open future, understanding that the system's response to pressure is often gradual and complex, but ultimately, susceptible to persistent, well-informed support for its people.

Key Action Items

• Shift Focus to People-Centric Engagement: Immediately begin identifying and establishing direct communication channels with credible civil society actors and dissidents within Iran. This requires moving beyond state-level diplomacy and investing in understanding grassroots aspirations. (Immediate, ongoing)
• Advocate for Internet Freedom Legislation: Urgently push for the passage of congressional legislation and the issuance of executive orders designed to circumvent internet shutdowns and provide robust support for internet access in Iran. (Over the next quarter)
• Develop a Long-Term Iran Strategy: Develop and publicly commit to a multi-year strategy that prioritizes the long-term empowerment of Iranian civil society, economic openness, and societal freedoms, acknowledging that significant progress may take 5-10 years. (Develop over the next 6 months, implement ongoing)
• Invest in Contemporary Expertise: Actively recruit and consult with individuals possessing recent, on-the-ground experience in Iran to inform policy decisions, moving away from reliance on outdated perspectives. (Immediate, ongoing)
• Prepare for Post-Regime Transition Scenarios: Begin scenario planning for a potential post-regime transition in Iran, focusing on supporting stability, open economies, and territorial integrity, rather than solely on regime change. This requires patient groundwork with no immediate visible payoff. (This pays off in 12-18 months, with ongoing strategic value)
• Embrace Unpopular Patience: Recognize that genuine, sustainable change in Iran will likely be a slow, non-linear process. Resist the temptation to seek immediate, visible victories that may destabilize the situation or prolong suffering. (Ongoing mindset shift)
• Support Cultural and Information Exchange: Invest in programs that foster cultural understanding and facilitate the free flow of information into and out of Iran, building long-term connections that transcend political cycles. (This pays off in 3-5 years, creating lasting ties)