The long-standing question of who should make the first move in diplomacy between Iran and the United States has resurfaced, with the latest crisis over the Strait of Hormuz highlighting a diplomatic deadlock. For decades, the dilemma has been whether Iran should limit its nuclear activities before receiving economic relief, or if the U.S. should ease pressure before expecting Iranian concessions. However, current events suggest the challenge is not about initiating action, but rather about the possibility of both sides acting in tandem.

This diplomatic impasse has become particularly urgent amidst the recent dispute concerning the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has proposed reopening the vital waterway, but has set conditions, including the lifting of a naval blockade, sanctions relief, and guarantees against further attacks. Tehran's position is that negotiations cannot commence under duress and confrontation. Conversely, Washington maintains that any renewed diplomatic process must prioritize addressing the nuclear issue from the outset.

This fundamental disagreement underscores the core problem: both nations are demanding confidence-building measures from the other before taking any initial steps. This situation has been navigated previously through mechanisms predicated on reciprocal actions. A key historical precedent is the 2013 Joint Plan of Action between Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany).

That interim agreement was structured around limited and reversible measures. Iran agreed to certain restrictions on its nuclear program, including limitations on enrichment levels and enhanced monitoring. In return, the U.S. and its partners offered a degree of sanctions relief. This reciprocal approach laid the groundwork for the subsequent 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The JCPOA established stringent limits on Iran's uranium enrichment, capping it at 3.67 percent, and expanded oversight by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In exchange for these nuclear restrictions, Iran received sanctions relief. The implementation of the JCPOA followed a phased process, beginning with the agreement in July 2015, followed by Adoption Day in October, and finally Implementation Day in January 2016, after the IAEA verified Iran's initial nuclear commitments.

Crucially, major sanctions relief only commenced after this verification process. The experience of the JCPOA demonstrated that while sequencing is important, agreements built solely on technical commitments without durable political guarantees are inherently vulnerable. This became evident when the United States withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 and reimposed sanctions, leading Iran to conclude that its technical concessions were insufficient without broader assurances.

From Iran's perspective, the subsequent breakdown of the agreement was largely attributed to the absence of guarantees that such concessions would be respected long-term. This has created a cycle of distrust, where both sides are hesitant to offer concessions without prior, verifiable actions from the other party.

The current standoff over the Strait of Hormuz and the broader nuclear issue highlights the need for a renewed diplomatic strategy. A path forward may involve carefully designed reciprocal steps, ensuring that both Iran and the United States have clear incentives and verifiable assurances throughout any negotiation process, moving beyond the unproductive cycle of demanding the other side act first.