The confrontation between the US and Iran should end in the interest not only of the region but of the world at large. This war, unleashed by the US and Israel, is having a global impact. Besides the issue of availability and price of oil and gas, the secondary and tertiary effects of the conflict on general economic activity, agriculture, manufacturing, logistics, travel, tourism, etc., are massive.
The two protagonists in the conflict present specific challenges. The US is led by a President who believes that dealing with nations is just like dealing with business ventures, that money-making is the only driving force, that outlandish public threats are a tool of diplomacy, and that changing positions constantly gives an edge in negotiations. Trump believes that he knows best, that making a running commentary publicly on issues at hand while negotiations are going on, unmindful of how it distracts from the process of serious negotiations, is an effective tactic. Clearly, his public pronouncements are different from what his negotiators would be saying in private talks to find some common ground, and, therefore, his confused blustering in public is hardly a normal or effective method to build a modicum of trust between the negotiating parties.
The Hardliners In Iran
The Iranians have seen their top leadership decapitated in an atrocious violation of international law. They have been subject to two military attacks by the US and Israel in the midst of negotiations. Their distrust of the Americans, already with historical roots, would have become deeper with this experience. It would seem that after the targeted killing of their top military leaders, military decisions in Iran have been decentralised to various command centres, so that further decapitations do not break down their retaliatory responses. It would be understandable if the new persons in charge are more hardline in their thinking.
All said and done, whatever both sides may think about the causes of the conflict, the war cannot continue endlessly. At some stage, reality has to dawn on both parties that the cost of the conflict would be too massive to absorb, and some compromise would have to be worked out. Whatever Trump’s bluster about wiping out Iran’s civilisation, which at its worst can be interpreted as using nuclear weapons, some sanity has to prevail on the American side, though it must be said that the much-touted checks and balances within the American political system have lost their functioning strength. On the Iranian side, even the belief that they face an existential threat and that there is no guarantee that Trump will not walk away from any agreement reached now, as he did with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) during his first term, and therefore it has to be a fight to the finish, cannot be the ultimate choice.
Why Trump Walked Away From Everything
Trump’s approach to the Iran question has been irrational. The JCPOA addressed Iran’s nuclear issue. But Trump repudiated it. The understanding in the talks between the US and Iran mediated by Oman, where Tehran went beyond the concessions it had made in 2015 when the JCPOA was negotiated, was repudiated by Trump again. The US-Iran talks in Islamabad, led by US Vice-President J D Vance and the Iranian Speaker, Mohammad Ghalibaf, seem to have failed on the nuclear issue.
This nuclear question seems to have become a fetish. The US is a nuclear power. Israel is widely acknowledged to possess nuclear weapons, but its nuclear programme has not been subject to inspections, unlike the Iranian one, which has been subject to stringent inspections for years. Israel is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which arguably makes the inspection of its nuclear programme even more necessary to address the nuclear issue in its regional dimension.
Israel may be right in assuming that, surrounded by hostile Arab countries, it needs the nuclear shield as protection. In the past, Israel has attacked and destroyed the suspected nuclear facilities of Iraq and Syria. It has not been able to attack the nuclear facilities of Iran on its own strength and has needed US intervention. Israel has been campaigning against the Iranian nuclear programme in the UN with dramatic prognostications over the years about Iran being on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, even though inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have reported that there was no proof Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons programme. Eventually, Israel succeeded with the Trump administration to militarily attack Iran’s nuclear facilities with B2 bombers, with Trump claiming the obliteration of these sites.
‘100% Satisfaction’
The issue now is that Iran should not be able to rebuild its nuclear facilities and also agree to eschew uranium enrichment altogether. Vance said at Islamabad that Iran had not accepted the clear red lines that the US had laid on the nuclear question, leading to the failure of the talks. From what we know of the provisions of the JCPOA and what the Omani Foreign Minister has publicly disclosed about the concessions that Iran had offered at Geneva to the US, which went beyond those made by it in the earlier agreement, it is not clear whether the US wants an agreement with Iran or its humiliation. The JCPOA contained a clear commitment by Iran that it would never acquire nuclear weapons. Trump reacted to the failure at Islamabad by saying that he wanted not 90% or 95% but 100% satisfaction. This is dictation, not negotiation.
Iran has repeatedly asserted its right to enrich uranium as provided by the NPT. According to reports, the US wants Iran not to enrich uranium for 20 years, but Iran is proposing five years. One cannot rely on such reports, as a lot of misinformation and narrative building is current. It is unlikely that Iranian negotiators can resile from their basic position without falling afoul of hardliners in Iran.
Schrodinger’s Hormuz
Trump has blown hot and cold on the Strait of Hormuz, claiming at one time that this did not affect the US and that those affected should get it opened. He sought NATO help to force its opening, and then claimed that this was only to test the response of US allies, in which they failed. He then announced a blockade of the Strait, but also stated that it had been lifted for China and the world. He modified that position again, stating that the Strait was open for all oil traffic but not Iranian. The Iranians had earlier said that if their oil was blocked, they would not allow oil from any country to go through. Later, the Iranian Foreign Minister said that the Strait will be open for passage until the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon is held.
Trump, in his usual fluctuating style of diplomacy, has once again announced a blockade of the Hormuz Strait for Iranian oil carriers but not for other carriers. The US Navy has attacked, disabled and boarded an Iranian tanker. Iran has promised to retaliate while announcing the closure of the Strait once again, though it appears that some ships are passing through it, in actual fact. Unfortunately, two Indian tankers have been fired upon by the Iranians, which has prompted a strong official protest by India. India is right in taking the position on the right of free passage through the Strait, in accordance with international law.
What An Actual ‘Deal’ Would Really Require
In this context, it is not clear how much control the US will have over Israel’s regional policies going ahead. A temporary ceasefire in Lebanon does not provide a durable solution to the Gaza issue, Israeli encroachments in the West Bank, the two-state solution, etc. Israel has now occupied parts of Syria. Without a larger settlement of these issues, addressing the Iranian nuclear issue, its missile capabilities, and its regional role will not stabilise West Asia. The issue is not only the exercise of Iranian power in the region but also that of Israel and the US.
A comprehensive solution will include issues of sanctions, release of frozen Iranian assets, etc. The US Congress will have to authorise the lifting of the sanctions legislated by it. Reports that America is offering USD 20 billion to Iran in exchange for Iran handing over its enriched uranium is reducing the issue to a Trumpian transaction, when Iran has a right to its globally frozen assets. The US holds only USD 2 billion of Iranian assets.
The issues involved are extremely complex. Pakistan and others have been working on the next round of US-Iran talks in Islamabad. Pakistan is trying to milk as much as possible the opportunity it has been given by the US for facilitating the talks, for its own diplomatic and financial gain. The US has announced that an American delegation will go to Islamabad, with some confusion about whether Vice-President Vance will be part of this one as well. It will be odd if he goes, even if all loose ends were now tied up, which is most unlikely.
The Iranians are not confirming their participation but could participate if the stage for the next round of talks was credibly set – which is rather unlikely, especially after the latest US act to attack an Iranian ship, which the Iranians see as a violation of the ceasefire agreement. To expect a breakthrough in a fresh round of talks, given Trump’s continuing bombing threats and the US attack on an Iranian ship, would be an unrealistic proposition.
Trump made a cardinal error in attacking Iran and continues to mishandle the situation. The world is suffering from the consequences of his erratic policies.
(Kanwal Sibal was Foreign Secretary and Ambassador to Turkey, Egypt, France and Russia, and Deputy Chief Of Mission in Washington.)
Disclaimer: These are the perosnal opinions of the author