Back to amateur questions about U.S.-Iran foreign policy

The history between Iran and the United States for the past few decades seems to be a series of doomed agreements that are the result of short bouts of highly pressurized discussions.

What's going on during the years between the times that the agreements fall apart, when they're not yet showing signs of being about to fall apart?

My first idea about it is that the talking is more important than the paperwork.  I feel like there should be more talking between the countries about the things that are not directly related to nuclear capability or war at all.  I would start with human rights; that would be my priority.  I don't object to sanctions over that issue; I just think that I would try to have additional discussion about human rights as an issue.  The Iranian government has a different perspective about human rights than the U.S. government does; I would try to have Iranians and Americans talking about their perspectives all the time, not once every few months or every few years.  People who are in prison are in prison for 24 hours all the time until they are released, if they are released.  If I were in prison, I'd like to know that someone was talking about it all the time.

I am hesitant to say this, but I can't help squirming a little bit while reading through the history of these discussions and agreements.  It all sounds like bigger countries telling Iran what to do, then Iran refusing, then Iran agreeing, then Iran rebelling, then Iran being punished; it bothers me.  It's not like a dialogue.