News ID : 211381
Publish Date : 2/3/2025 9:42:22 AM
Pitfalls of oversimplifying negotiations

Pitfalls of oversimplifying negotiations

By Ebrahim Beheshti Journalist

These days, the potential negotiations between Iran and the US have become a topic of polarization among supporters and opponents. This is not the first time, and it probably will not be the last.

Both sides, within the legal and customary frameworks, have the right to criticize, express opinions, and provide analysis, which can ultimately contribute to expert assessments of diplomatic talks, whether with the US or other countries.

However, it seems that the issue of Tehran-Washington negotiations is being noticeably oversimplified by both proponents and opponents. It is as if there is no historical precedent or experience, no obstacles to negotiations, and both sides can start talks and reach a deal as soon as they decide to.

Opponents take a firm stance, viewing any dialogue with the US as an outright betrayal of the Establishment and the people, as if the other side has already rolled out the red carpet for the Iranian negotiators, and the only remaining issue is the composition of Iran’s delegation! Moreover, this group of actors likely assumes that entering negotiations means striking an agreement, and given their negative perception of the JCPOA, they consider Tehran as a player destined to lose. Therefore, based on this analytical framework, they deem any negotiation with the US invalid.

On the other hand, some supporters of US-Iran negotiations believe that the new US administration will welcome talks with Iran under any circumstances, and the only remaining factor for starting talks and hammering out a deal is the will of the Iranian government. In this context, they see the government the sole and ultimate decision-maker. Some in this camp even assume that negotiations will lead to an agreement in a few days or weeks.

The will of both parties to adopt a diplomatic path to manage tensions and, if possible, settle or partially resolve differences is an important factor and, in fact, the beginning of a process. However, mere will is not sufficient. Even to kickstart negotiations, the existence of will is necessary but not sufficient. As President Masoud Pezeshkian said a while ago: “Trump must first prove that he will keep his word. We will talk when he keeps his promises.”

Or, as Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in an interview with Al Jazeera, the release of Iran’s frozen assets by the US would be one of the steps for confidence-building.

Naturally, and especially based on past experiences, expressing the will to negotiate, whether in Iran or the US, requires certain prerequisites. Moreover, there have always been oppositions and lobbies on both sides to prevent reaching such a stage.

So far, there are some indications that both sides are moving toward diplomacy. For instance, the new government in Tehran has based its foreign policy on balancing and constructive engagement with the world. The new US administration has not, at least in words and statements, shown any sign of choosing a path other than diplomacy. Moreover, the experience of the previous Donald Trump administration, its unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA, and the acknowledgment by many US officials and analysts of the ineffectiveness of the maximum pressure policy against Tehran, are all before the new White House officials. Some realities in the region and the international system also necessitate that Iran and the US take steps to manage and reduce tensions, and any escalation of tensions will not benefit either side or their interests and considerations in the region.

Apart from such oversimplifications about the potential talks between Iran and the US, there are defined principles in the policy-making norms of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which, if reminded to supporters and opponents, might help prevent the polarization of pro and anti-negotiation stances. One of these principles is that decision-making on major foreign policy issues, such as talks with the US, follows a specific path in the Establishment. Araghchi has repeatedly emphasized this, saying on January 15: “Decision-making on important state matters, including negotiations to lift sanctions, follows a well-known path. All opinions are heard, and the decision is made where it should be, and the Foreign Ministry, of course, executes what the Establishment decides.”

The major drawback of the oversimplifications made about the potential US-Iran negotiations is, on the one hand, raising society’s expectations when no agreement has yet been reached, and on the other hand, diverting or pushing the diplomatic framework away from its natural and defined path and reducing it to club and street-level debates.


Iran Daily
Key Words
IranusNegotiations
Comments

first name & last name

email

comment