All Policy Analysis by Patrick Clawson

Iran's economy has taken a turn for the worse, primarily due to poor domestic policies as well as international sanctions. But it would be unduly optimistic to think this will change the regime's nuclear stance.

U.S. statements about Iran have become more consistent and tough since early March, but the impact of this shift remains unclear.

Iran sees itself in a strong position relative to the West and therefore believes it has little reason to be forthcoming in nuclear negotiations.

While Tehran may be preparing the ground for an interim agreement on terms the West would accept, any deal-in-principle would have to be finalized, put into practice, and followed by fuller agreements.

The question is not whether sanctions have worked but whether the strategy they serve is correct.

In pursuing a nuclear deal with Tehran, Obama is betting against the future. You wouldn't know it from following the news, but the nuclear impasse is not the only issue dividing Iran and the United States. In his latest message to the Iranian people on the occasion of their festival

If Iran decides to seriously negotiate during upcoming nuclear talks -- currently scheduled to begin this weekend in Istanbul -- what might it expect to gain from the resultant deal? Probably not much, because even a comprehensive agreement on nuclear issues would not close the profound geostrategic split between Washington

The regional impact of Bashar al-Asad's eventual fate may be at least as important for American interests as the direct effects inside Syria.

If Washington does not demonstrate through both word and deed the risks that Tehran faces, overly optimistic Iranian hardliners may wrongly decide that the benefits of a confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz outweigh the costs.