Nuclear talks to resume despite disruption

By Hassan Beheshtipour

International relations expert

The notion that the postponement of the fourth round of nuclear talks between Iran and the US spells the collapse of negotiations is wide of the mark. If the talks had truly been called off or put on ice for good, such an interpretation might hold water, but that is simply not the case. It appears that the Americans have played a double game from the outset, ramping up both threats and sanctions while still keeping the door open to negotiations. From the standpoint of international relations and the rules of engagement, it is not possible to sit down at the table with a counterpart while simultaneously issuing threats, assuming this aggressive tone will wring out more concessions.

This kind of approach is straight out of President Donald Trump’s political logic and his brazen team, who have often thrown out the rulebook when it comes to the norms of international diplomacy.
Such behavior has not been limited to Iran, but even against long-standing allies like Canada. For instance, Trump brazenly suggested that Canada, despite being larger than the US, should be folded into the United States as a state, and he scrapped NAFTA during his first term in favor of a new deal with Mexico.

 When a government throws caution to the wind like this, it is no surprise that its Iran policy is a mix of sanctions and threats. The US slaps new sanctions almost daily, which, even if not very effective, are wielded as a stick at the negotiating table.
There are two schools of thought here: some argue that negotiating with such a government is a dead end, while others, myself included, believe that talks should go ahead to strip away Washington’s propaganda tool that claims Iran refuses dialogue. It is imperative to show up with strength and speak up for Iranian nation’s rights, without letting threats and sanctions derail the process or bring talks crashing down.
For Iranian officials, negotiation is a core principle aimed at hammering out a diplomatic solution to end the unjust sanctions imposed on the Iranian people. There is no alternative to talks for lifting these sanctions. While focusing on the domestic economy and reforms can blunt the impact of sanctions, the reality is that to maintain international trade, attract foreign investment, and get back into the global arena, sanctions must be addressed, and that requires effort at the negotiating table. Therefore, the public should not be led to buy into the narrative that one missed session on the calendar means the whole process is about to fall apart. In my view, the talks will move forward.
As for the recent ousting of the US national security adviser and the temporary appointment of the secretary of state to the post, it is unlikely this shake-up is directly tied to Iran. The real story is a major blunder by the adviser, a position critical in shaping US foreign policy, who let slip private discussions in a group chat by mistakenly adding a journalist. The adviser was shown the door for personal failings and lack of qualification.
While such a reshuffle does not directly relate to Iran, removing a hardliner who was dead set against talks could take some of the wind out of the sails of those opposed to negotiations. Still, with figures like the secretary of state, who digs in his heels against Iran, calling the shots, any weakening of the anti-talks camp will likely be limited.