Planeloads of negotiators and too little time: US and Iran’s 21 hours of talks | US-Israel war on Iran
ITwo delegations at the Iran-US peace talks in Islamabad hoped that the large number of negotiators sent to Pakistan could overcome the problem of having only a limited number of hours to resolve the 20-year dispute over Iran’s nuclear ambitions; this obstacle is now obscured by complex new issues such as future control of the Strait of Hormuz and compensation for the US attack on Iran.
Iran sent two planeloads of negotiators, including many members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), to ensure that no gains made on the ground were abandoned at the diplomatic table. Diplomats distributed political, legal, security, economic and military files. A technical statement prepared by Iran on nuclear facility safety was more than 100 pages long.
The United States, which has often been accused of leaving talks to “noteless” special envoy Steve Witkoff, sent not only vice president J.D. Vance but also nearly 300 other officials. Had he finally realized that the Iranian negotiating team, which included the likes of Ali Bagheri Kani, deputy secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and chief negotiator of previous nuclear talks, and Abbas Araghchi, chief negotiator in 2015 and now foreign minister, might have been at the top of their briefing.
Vance spoke to Donald Trump at least a dozen times during the talks, and even once to Israeli Benjamin Netanyahu; Araghchi was quick to claim that this speech led to a hardening of the US stance. But it was probably unrealistic to expect the two years of negotiations on the nuclear deal in Vienna between 2013 and 2015 to be resolved in a single marathon session.
Robert Malley, an experienced figure in nuclear negotiations with Iran under the Joe Biden administration, noted succinctly: “If the goal was to reiterate a demand that Iran had already rejected, twenty-one hours was too much. If the goal was to negotiate, this time was too little.”
Aaron David Miller, another US state department veteran, stated that if the administration believed that Iran would abandon enrichment after only 21 hours of negotiations (as Vance implied), it completely misread the moment and the Iranian delegation.
In this context, it was unfortunate that Vance talked about coming to Islamabad and seeing “if we could get to a situation where the Iranians would be willing to accept our terms.” Former Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif, a courageous advocate of talks with the United States even in wartime, was not the only Iranian to argue that this phrase revealed the unchanging take-it-or-leave-it arrogance of the United States. “No negotiations with Iran can succeed, at least not on our/your terms,” he said. “The United States must learn: You cannot dictate terms to Iran. It is not too late to learn. Yet.”
However, this raises questions about whether the negotiation process is now complete or ongoing and what the two sides are trying to achieve over a weekend in Islamabad. On the first question, Pakistan, the host and mediator of the talks, implores both sides not to close the door to diplomacy and continue the war. Israeli Energy Minister Eli Cohen, on the contrary, claims that the lack of an agreement means that it is possible to attack the Islamic Republic.
Vance was more subtle. “We’re leaving here with a very simple offer, a method of understanding that is our best and final offer. We’ll see if the Iranians accept it,” he said, hinting at an ongoing conversation.
Trump’s tentatively stated plan is to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, trying to seize Iran’s best negotiating card to prevent Iranian oil from being exported. As many Iranian diplomats have pointed out, such a move could only increase upward pressure on oil prices.
As for what the two sides were trying to achieve in the 21 hours of diplomacy, they emerged to test each other’s resolve at some level after nearly 40 days of conflict. Prior to the talks, Iran backtracked somewhat as it was unable to secure the full ceasefire it had requested in Lebanon and release its frozen assets before meeting with Vance. Netanyahu instead agreed to hold direct talks with Lebanon on Tuesday for the first time in 30 years.
Iran’s aim was to draft a memorandum of understanding implying an extension of the two-week ceasefire before finalizing a peace agreement that would last more than two weeks.
Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei acknowledged that the time frame in Islamabad meant no draft agreement could be reached and mentioned two or three unresolved issues. These issues are not technical but fundamental: Israel ending its aggression in Lebanon; A protocol on the future management of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz; and the future of Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile; Including whether it would be sufficient for Iran to separate the uranium under the strict supervision of the UN nuclear inspectorate in Iran, or whether it would instead have to be exported to a third country such as Russia.
On Iran’s right to enrich uranium domestically, Vance said: “The reality is that we need a positive commitment that they will not seek nuclear weapons and that they will not seek the means to quickly obtain nuclear weapons.”
The qualifying adverb “quickly” may be important because, on one interpretation, enrichment to 3.67% purity (the maximum purity level established in Barack Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal) leaves Iran a long way from nuclear weapons-level purity. Iran’s practical capacity to enrich uranium is currently zero due to previous US attacks on its nuclear facilities, so the debate about the right to enrich is largely theoretical and a debate about national sovereignty.
Less theoretical is the immediate future of the Strait of Hormuz, the poison pill given to the world because the Trump team could not imagine Iran’s response to an attack that it said would last several days.
Currently, Iran chooses the nationality of ships passing through the Bosphorus. According to Tanker Tracker, 2 million barrels of Iraqi oil and 4 million barrels of Saudi oil passed through the strait on Saturday. Special permits based on grace and favor could give Iran a new economic and diplomatic weapon, but it is not a sustainable basis for conducting global trade. First of all, Iran does not have the administrative apparatus to impose selective tariffs or control the strait; This is something Iran should do together with Oman on the other side of the strait.
However, it is difficult for Iran to give up its new weapon because it is the source of its salvation in this war. Mohammad Taghi Naghdali, a member of the Iranian parliament, said: “The Strait of Hormuz is more than an atomic bomb for us; it is an atomic bomb that works continuously on a global level and demonstrates the strategic depth of the Islamic republic.” The options, he said, were to return to war or keep the bone at the throat of the world.
Iran’s deep problems have not evaporated. Inflation is heading towards triple digits. A way must be found to lift the internet blackout, or businesses will close and civil society will lose patience. The country is cut off and its leadership is under constant threat of assassination. For Iran, surviving so far is an astonishing achievement, but survival, like patriotism, may not be enough.
