Iran and the U.S. Negotiating in Parallel Worlds
After a year of proxy negotiations between Iran and the U.S., the statements from both sides are so divergent that one might even question the existence of negotiations. It seems these two countries have been negotiating in parallel worlds for a year, and have not even come close to minimal common grounds. When Iran sent its latest proposal to the U.S., it announced that the text was constructive with the aim of finalizing the negotiations. However, the U.S., in a completely opposite reaction, described Iran’s response as non-constructive.
This divergent proxy process continues. Antony Blinken, who traveled to Mexico, responded to journalists’ questions about a potential agreement with Iran by saying he cannot predict a specific timeline, except to reiterate that it seems Iran either lacks the willingness or the ability to do what is necessary to reach an agreement. He recently stated that the proposal presented by the European Union for an agreement in the Vienna talks is clearly a regression and makes the prospect of a short-term agreement unlikely.
The German Chancellor, in a joint press conference with the Israeli Prime Minister, claimed that an agreement with Iran will certainly not happen in the near future. However, Mohammad Marandi, media advisor to the Iranian negotiating team in the Vienna talks, emphasized in an interview with the Qatari network Al Jazeera that despite the pressures on the U.S. government, they are still close to reaching an agreement.
It is unclear which government currently holds the ball in the negotiation court. Iran claims the ball is in the U.S.’s court, while the U.S. and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) claim the opposite. The spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that if the other side has the political will necessary to reach an agreement, a comprehensive and good agreement is possible.
Marandi also emphasized that U.S. President Joe Biden must make decisions to resolve the issues hindering the nuclear agreement. Russia, which these days seems to be siding with Iran, claims that the finalization of the Vienna negotiations depends solely on the political will of the participating countries.
The New Hurdle from the Agency
Things are getting harder for Iran by the day. Not only have the negotiations, which seemed to have reached the final step, become suspended and ambiguous, but the International Atomic Energy Agency has also raised new objections to Iran’s nuclear program. The Board of Governors meeting began yesterday, and the issue of Iran is one of the main topics.
There is a high likelihood that the outcome could lead to a resolution against Iran. Rafael Grossi, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, stated in a press conference before the Board of Governors meeting that monitoring Iran’s nuclear program is becoming more difficult. With the shutdown of the agency’s surveillance cameras, the oversight gap on Iran’s nuclear program is growing. The current investigations, which we are trying to conduct in cooperation with Iran, have not yet been fruitful, and we are still waiting for this to happen.
Iran believes that the agency is influenced by the U.S. and Israel and acts politically. However, Grossi responded by saying that they found traces of uranium at locations that were never declared, places that were never supposed to have nuclear activities, and asked, ‘Explain to me why you say this is a political activity.’
Return to Chapter 7
During Rouhani’s time, by reaching the JCPOA agreement, Iran managed to remove itself from under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the same chapter that, with the issuance of successive resolutions during Ahmadinejad’s time, brought Iran to the brink of military attack. Ahmadinejad had said, ‘Issue so many resolutions until your resolution machine breaks.’ Now, Rahman Ghahremanpour, a foreign policy expert, predicts that it is not unlikely for Iran to return to the same conditions.
Regarding the possibility of issuing a resolution against Iran in the upcoming Board of Governors meeting, he said that given the statements issued by the three European countries, the likelihood of issuing a statement has increased somewhat. Although this statement may not be very harsh, it seems that the U.S.-European bloc and their supporting countries will try, if possible, to either issue a statement or, without consensus, ask Iran to cooperate with the agency. This statement from the three European countries shows that their determination to exert pressure on Iran in the Board of Governors is serious.
Intensification of Distrust
A question arises as to why Iran does not follow the 2015 JCPOA approach in the agency discussions. There are two answers to this question: one is the intensification of distrust due to the JCPOA experience, and the second is the dynamic nature of global developments. Ghahremanpour has said that currently, the level of distrust between the two sides, especially Iran’s distrust of the U.S., is greater than in 2015 because Iran witnessed Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA and the intensification of sanctions.
This overarching sense of distrust can also be inferred from the statements of the spokesperson for Iran’s diplomatic apparatus. Kanaani-Moghadam said that the U.S. is a country that withdrew from the JCPOA and imposed illegal and unilateral sanctions, imposing significant costs on the Iranian government and nation. Given this behavior, it now has no right to position itself as a claimant and adopt a creditor’s posture.
It is the U.S. that must prove its respect for returning to the agreement process. Both the U.S. and the European troika must prove that they adhere to international norms in the negotiation process and do not prioritize the interests of the Zionist regime in their political decision-making.
The JCPOA Era Has Ended
Ghahremanpour believes that another obstacle to leveraging the JCPOA experience is global developments and changing U.S. priorities. In 2015, the U.S. still had a significant military presence in the region, and the Obama administration, despite opposition from Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, reached a nuclear agreement with Iran. On the other hand, internationally, 2015 was a year when the Obama administration was in power, and the issue of pivoting to Asia and containing China had just emerged. At that time, the U.S. wanted to reduce its burden in the Middle East and shift toward China. Now, distrust between the U.S. and Russia, the U.S. and China, and the competition between the U.S. and China in Asia have also intensified.