Iran and the U.S. Negotiating in Parallel Worlds
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 far apart that one might even question the very existence of negotiations. It seems as though these two countries have been negotiating in parallel worlds for a year and haven’t even come close to agreeing on the minimum commonalities. When Iran sent its latest proposal to the U.S., it announced that the text had a constructive approach aimed at finalizing the negotiations, but the U.S., in a completely opposite reaction, described Iran’s response as non-constructive.
This divergent proxy process continues. Antony Blinken, who is visiting Mexico, responded to reporters’ questions about a potential agreement with Iran and the revival of the JCPOA by saying, ‘I can’t predict a specific time, except to reiterate that it seems Iran either lacks the willingness or the ability to do what’s necessary to reach an agreement.’ He recently also stated that the proposal offered by the European Union for an agreement in the Vienna negotiations is clearly a step backward and makes the prospect of an agreement in the short term unlikely.
The German Chancellor, in a joint press conference with the Israeli Prime Minister, claimed that an agreement with Iran will definitely 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 Qatar’s Al Jazeera that despite the pressures on the U.S. government, we are still close to reaching an agreement.
It is unclear which government’s court the negotiation ball is in right now. Iran claims that the ball is in the U.S.’s court, while the U.S. and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) claim the opposite. The Foreign Ministry spokesperson stated that if the other side has the necessary political will to reach an agreement, a comprehensive and good agreement can be achieved.
Marandi also emphasized that U.S. President Joe Biden needs to make decisions to resolve the issues hindering the nuclear agreement. Russia, which these days seems to be siding with Iran, has claimed that the finalization of the Vienna negotiations solely depends on the political will of the participating countries.
New Hurdle from the Agency
The situation for Iran is getting more difficult by the day. Now, not only have the negotiations, which seemed to have reached the final step, become suspended and ambiguous, but the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 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 of this meeting.
There is a high probability that the outcome will lead to a resolution against Iran. Rafael Grossi, Director General of the IAEA, said at a press conference before the Board of Governors meeting that monitoring Iran’s nuclear program is becoming more difficult. With the agency’s surveillance cameras being turned off, the oversight gap on Iran’s nuclear program is getting bigger and bigger. The current investigations, which we are trying to conduct with Iran’s cooperation, 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, but Grossi responded by saying, ‘We found traces of uranium in places that were never declared, places that were never supposed to have nuclear activities, and we ask, explain to me why you say this is a political activity.’
Return to Chapter 7
During Rouhani’s time and by reaching the JCPOA agreement, Iran managed to get itself out from under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, the same chapter that, with successive resolutions during Ahmadinejad’s time, brought Iran to the brink of military attack. Ahmadinejad had said, ‘Issue so many resolutions until your resolution seeds break.’ Now, Rahman Ghahremanpour, an expert in foreign policy, has predicted that it is not unlikely for Iran to return to those conditions.
Regarding the possibility of issuing a resolution against Iran at 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.-Europe 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 their determination to exert pressure on Iran at the Board of Governors is serious.
Increasing Distrust
A question arises: why doesn’t Iran follow the 2015 JCPOA approach with the agency? There are two answers to this question: one is the increased distrust resulting from the JCPOA experience, and the other is the non-static nature of global developments. Ghahremanpour 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 pervasive sense of distrust can also be inferred from the statements of Iran’s diplomatic apparatus spokesperson. Kanaani Moqaddam said, ‘The U.S. is a country that withdrew from the JCPOA and imposed illegal and unilateral sanctions, inflicting significant costs on the Iranian government and nation, and given this behavior, it now has no right to take a claimant stance and adopt a creditor’s posture.’
It is the U.S. that must prove its respect for the process of returning to the agreement. 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 World Has Ended
Ghahremanpour believes that another obstacle to utilizing the JCPOA experience is global developments and the change in 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 the year when the Obama administration was in power, and the issue of pivoting to Asia and containing China had just been raised, meaning that at that time, the U.S. wanted to reduce its burden in the Middle East and move towards China. Now, the distrust between the U.S. and Russia and the U.S. and China, as well as the competition between the U.S. and China in Asia, has also intensified.
