.jpg)
Several analysts have weighed in on the likelihood, framework, and potential content of future Iran-US talks. Their insights follow.
Chances of deal depends on
US flexibility
By Amir-Ali Abolfath
US affairs expert
Washington is keen on launching direct negotiations with Iran to hammer out a deal, believing that indirect talks are simply time-consuming. Trump has reportedly laid down a two-month window for addressing the Iran issue, and within this timeline, the US seems determined to push through talks—one way or another.
At this stage, Iran continues to insist on indirect negotiations, and it remains unclear whether it will eventually come around to sitting down face-to-face with the US. The situation is shrouded in uncertainty.
Should Trump’s executive memo form the backbone of the talks, negotiations will be difficult, leaving little room to wiggle around core demands.
There is still a chance for a deal—provided Trump’s memo does not set the bar. If the Americans scale back their expectations and back away from certain demands, especially in areas where Iran has drawn a red line, like its missile and defense programs, then some progress might be made.
But until talks—direct or indirect—get off the ground, it will remain unclear exactly what the US wants or how much room there is to negotiate or maneuver.
No go without Leader’s green light
By Jabbar Kouchakinejad
Iranian conservative MP
When it comes to talks with the US—which sits at the helm of the Western world—negotiations have gone on in the past and will likely crop up again.
Iran does not have any inherent objection to the idea of negotiations. However, the format, framework, and demands of such talks are ultimately laid out by Iran’s Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei.
As the Leader has declared: “No direct talks.” This is not a suggestion—it is a decree. Direct negotiations are off the table.
If direct talks are to be considered, a specific set of steps must be followed and any move must be signed off on by the Leader.
By Sina Azodi
GWU professor
In any negotiations, Iran must stand its ground and ensure the enemy does not trample over its rights. Such a stance would itself keep the adversary from daring to suggest military conflict.
Extreme caution must be exercised regarding Trump’s proposals. Those on Iran’s negotiation team must take care not to give away too much in indirect talks with Washington.
Saving face and building trust
There are several reasons why Iran insists on keeping talks indirect. One key argument, especially after the US pulled out of the JCPOA, is that formal talks should remain indirect. However, the more compelling reason is likely concern over appearances. Iran does not want to come off as having been strong-armed into negotiations under threat.
One benefit of indirect talks is that it allows Iran to signal that it is entering discussions of its own volition—not because it was backed into a corner.
Another issue that looms large is the deep distrust between Iran and the United States. Employing a neutral go-between like Oman—long respected for its role as a mediator between the two—could help bridge the trust gap.
As for whether the US will go along with indirect talks, that remains uncertain. One thing is clear about Trump: he is obsessed with media coverage and soaking up the spotlight. He likes to present himself as the man who struck a deal. If indirect talks succeed and Trump claims credit, then the door may open for direct talks—which would suit him just fine.
But will Trump walk back his demands? It is hard to say whether his team will shift gears. Right now, there is a clear split inside the White House: on one side is Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff, focusing on oversight of Iran’s nuclear program; on the other is his national security adviser Mike Waltz, demanding a total dismantling of Iran’s missile and nuclear activities.
It seems Trump himself would rather zero in on Iran’s nuclear work.
No comments:
Post a Comment