U.S.–Iran Tensions and Diplomatic Talks

A panel of national security and sanctions experts examined the evolving dynamics of U.S.–Iran relations, focusing on the strategic, legal and economic implications of rising tensions between the two countries. The discussion brought together legal practitioners and regional analysts to assess how geopolitical developments and domestic pressures inside Iran are shaping the policy landscape.

DJ Wolff, Partner and Co-Chair of the Crowell & Moring's International Trade Group, moderated the conversation, framing the discussion around two core questions: how Iran might respond to escalating tensions and what constraints policymakers face in shaping the U.S. strategy.

Ibrahim Al-Assil, Senior Research Fellow at Harvard’s Middle East Initiative at the Belfer Center, highlighted Iran’s reliance on indirect or asymmetric responses when confronted with external pressure. “Iran always depended on asymmetry in responding to attacks,” he said, explaining that Tehran has historically relied on regional networks, cyber activity and other indirect tools to project power. While those networks have weakened in recent years due to regional developments and Israeli military pressure, Al-Assil warned that internal instability could increase the risk of miscalculation.

The panel also examined the implications for businesses navigating sanctions compliance. Trevor Schmitt, an attorney at Arnold & Porter specializing in export controls and economic sanctions, noted that Iran remains subject to one of the most comprehensive sanctions regimes in the world. However, heightened geopolitical tensions still raise compliance risks. Companies must be vigilant about diversion risks and supply-chain exposure, he said, particularly as enforcement authorities may increase scrutiny of transactions linked indirectly to Iran.

From a policymaking perspective, Jason Wright, Partner at Steptoe LLP and a national security lawyer with more than two decades of military service, emphasized the constraints facing U.S. decision-makers. “Statecraft is the orchestration of military force, economic pressure, legal authority, and diplomacy toward political ends,” he said, noting that legal authorities, intelligence limitations and escalation management all shape the range of policy options.

The discussion concluded that while pressure on Iran is intensifying, diplomatic outcomes remain uncertain as competing strategic priorities continue to complicate negotiations.