Saluto,
I’ll be honest, I’m struggling to follow the US-Iran negotiations. Between Trump’s flip-flopping, the killing of Iranian officials, and the US and Israel pulling in different directions, it’s hard to know where things stand. Here, I’ll first give you three articles I found interesting on the topic.
But more importantly, afterwards, I’ll outline important dynamics making negotiations difficult and why a negotiated settlement might still take time.
🗞️ Three articles on US negotiations
Jonathan Powell, Britain's national security adviser, was actually at the table in Geneva and thought a deal was within reach. Worth reading precisely because it comes from someone who was there.
‘War on Iran during nuclear negotiations undermines the US’s ability to talk peace around the world − and the effects won’t end when Trump leaves office’ - The Conversation
Bombing the country you're negotiating with (not once, but twice) is not great for building trust. This article makes the case well.
‘Trump’s bluff in Iran is a ‘disaster’ of his own’ - The Washington Post
Remember Obama's red line in Syria? Trump threatened to bomb Iranian power plants, then repeatedly postponed while claiming "productive talks" Iran flatly denied. The problem isn't that he didn't follow through (bombing civilian infrastructure is wrong…). The problem is making threats you have no intention of keeping. That's just bad diplomacy.
💭 My takeaway: why a settlement remains elusive
This is an analysis, not a prediction. So take it with a grain of salt. I see four things standing in the way of a negotiated settlement that would end the war.
First: the Iranian regime is resilient. Killing their leaders hasn’t created the power vacuum the Trump administration seemed to be counting on. Iranian officials apparently nominate up to four potential successors, meaning replacements with similar ideologies step in quickly. So a Venezuela-type solution simply isn’t on the cards.
Second: US war aims remain unclear. What does victory actually look like: a new regime, denuclearization, a reopened strait? For now it looks like “degrade now, figure out later,” which anyone who lived through Afghanistan and Iraq will find uncomfortably familiar.
Third: Iran’s goal isn’t to defeat the US militarily. It’s to make the war expensive enough to force a deal on its own terms. Threatening Hormuz, striking Gulf Countries desalination facilities, or activating the Houthis at the Bab-el-Mandeb strait. Cheap, replaceable tools that punch above their weight, but that give the Iran leverage. This leads hardliners among the Iranian Regime to have maximalist demands the US won’t accept.
Fourth: spoilers are everywhere. Iranian hardliners, Netanyahu pushing for regime change, the Houthis; all have more to gain from chaos than from a deal.
That said, both the US and Iran have reasons to find an end to the war. The US faces pressure from Gulf allies and voters who didn’t sign up for another forever war. The Iranian Regime, which faced immense protests before the strikes and responded with brutal repression, needs a narrative it can sell as resistance victory. If a deal frames as having fought off US and Israeli interventionism, they’d likely take it.
And with oil prices climbing, the entire world is paying for every extra day this drags on.
Hope it helps you make sense of the situation.
Dr Cedric Pfanner
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.