Iran refused to give up its nuclear program because it believed the alternative was worse. George Friedman, founder of Geopolitical Futures, explained that Tehran's stubbornness was not irrational - it was a calculated bet by a regime that saw itself surrounded by enemies on every side.

Friedman laid out Iran's strategic calculus on the Talking Geopolitics podcast, as reported by "Hvylya".

"They don't have very many friends in the region," Friedman said. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the Gulf states - all had tense or openly hostile relationships with Tehran. Israel was an existential adversary. Turkey was growing its military capabilities rapidly. Even Iraq, despite its Shiite majority, remained hostile along sectarian Sunni-Shiite lines. "Iran is not necessarily - firstly it is not an Arab country, it is a Persian country," Friedman noted, highlighting the ethnic divide that further isolated Tehran.

In this environment, nuclear weapons looked like the only reliable deterrent. "Unless you believe that if you didn't have a nuclear program, Israel, the United States, Saudi Arabia, the Turks, everyone else would be coming into you," Friedman said, articulating the regime's logic. The bomb was meant to keep all of them at bay.

But Iran miscalculated on a critical point: it assumed negotiations could continue indefinitely. "I think they thought that the negotiation process could go on indefinitely," Friedman said. "They wanted as much time as they could get." Iran offered compromises - a smaller program, civilian research purposes - but refused total elimination and rejected permanent inspections. Washington read this as confirmation of hostile intent.

The US concluded that Iran's refusal to abandon the program meant it intended to build and potentially use the weapon. "At some point they would either develop a nuclear weapon and be dangerous in the region as well as to the United States, and not be able to be handled," Friedman said. At that point, the logic shifted from negotiation to regime change. "One of the conclusions may have been, look, sooner or later we are going to have to deal with the Iranians. Better sooner than later."

Also read: "There Is No Plan B": Foreign Policy Analysts Expose a Fatal Flaw in U.S. Military Doctrine