View from Delhi: To expect a breakthrough in a fresh round of U.S.-Iranian talks would be an unrealistic proposition

Photo: TRT World

The JCPOA is dead. The Oman negotiations failed. Islamabad shows little promise. What is left for US and Iran now? – puts a question Kanwal Sibal, former Indian Foreign Secretary and Ambassador to Turkey, Egypt, France and Russia, and Deputy chief of mission in Washington.

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.

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.

'100% Satisfaction'

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.

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 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.

read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs