Diplomatic deal still within reach By Rahman Ghahremanpour

By Rahman Ghahremanpour

International affairs analyst-Iran Daily

The US military buildup in the Persian Gulf serves both diplomacy and the possibility of confrontation with Iran. Unde-r President Donald Trump’s coercive diplomacy framework, these two approaches do not clash with each other; rather, they go hand in hand. As seen during Israel’s 12-day war against Iran in June, Trump typically starts by calling for talks and a diplomatic deal, and if such an agreement falls through, he then turns to military action. From this perspective, the current US naval presence can be read as having both purposes.

That said, as a global power, the United States would need to secure at least a minimum level of justification in public opinion before launching any military action. In the case of Venezuela, the justification Washington pursued was alleged cocaine trafficking by the government of president Nicolas Maduro to the United States, the resulting threat to US security, and the deaths of American youth due to drug overdoses. In the case of Iran, it appears that Trump is seeking to follow a similar playbook: first putting a diplomatic offer on the table and laying out conditions that are unlikely to be accepted by Iran, then telling the international community that Iran refused the deal and that military action has therefore become necessary.
However, this does not mean that the diplomatic path has been completely shut down. A diplomatic agreement remains possible, even though it would be extremely difficult. Achieving it would require, first and foremost, a shift in US policy and positions, followed by changes on the Iranian side.
Several regional countries, including Turkey, have made efforts to open diplomatic channels between Tehran and Washington. Unfortunately, regional states lack the leverage needed to influence White House policies in any meaningful way. At the same time, West Asian countries do not have a strong regional organization such as the European Union or ASEAN that carries significant weight in the global economy and politics. For this reason, I view these regional diplomatic efforts with caution. Past experience, including the first Persian Gulf War, the invasion of Iraq, and strikes on nuclear facilities in Iran and Syria, as well as the overthrow of the government of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, has shown that regional organizations in the Middle East unfortunately lack effectiveness and initiative, and are unable to alter Washington’s policies.
At present, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed, the ruler of the United Arab Emirates, wields more influence in the United States than any other regional leader. This influence can be seen in his role in helping pave the way for peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia, as well as in the fact that, for the first time, trilateral talks between the United States, Russia and Ukraine were held in Abu Dhabi two weeks ago. At the next level, Saudi Arabia also appears to enjoy considerable clout in Washington for now. Therefore, if regional diplomacy is to gain traction, much will depend on the real decisions taken by Riyadh and Abu Dhabi regarding the current situation.