Iranian and US officials are scheduled to meet in Muscat, the capital of Oman, on Friday for their first face-to-face negotiations since the United States and Iran were at war last June — this time, in an attempt to stave off another conflict.
But it is still not clear whether the two sides agree about what they are willing to negotiate. Middle Eastern leaders have been pushing hard to bring the sides together, seeing it as the best chance to avoid dragging the region into yet another war.
For more than a month, US president Donald Trump has threatened to strike Iran. Last week, what he described as an “armada” of US warships reached the Persian Gulf. Iran has warned that it will unleash fierce retaliation on US military targets across the region and on Israel, and several Iran-backed militias across the region have also vowed to join the fray.
The confrontation began when Trump warned that he might strike Iran if it killed peaceful protesters as mass anti-government demonstrations swept the country last month. The government’s crackdown on those demonstrations, rights groups say, killed thousands.
READ MORE
[ The Irish Times view on the US and Iran: tensions building in the GulfOpens in new window ]
Trump has not talked about the protests in recent weeks and instead has vowed to hit Iran “with speed and violence” if it does not accept three demands: ending its nuclear programme and discarding its enriched uranium stockpile; reducing the number and range of ballistic missiles; and ending its support for militant groups across the region.
On Wednesday, US secretary of state Marco Rubio said the talks needed to include ballistic missiles, Iran’s aligned militias and its treatment of its own people “in order for talks to actually lead to something meaningful”.
Fearing that talks about Iran’s missiles and regional proxies could cause an immediate impasse, other countries in the region have been pushing for the session to focus on Iran’s nuclear programme, two Middle Eastern diplomats said. Some of Iran’s neighbors have proposed limiting Iran to minimal enrichment capabilities, probably 3 per cent or less.
That would be enough for Iran to “save face” from Trump’s demand of zero enrichment, they said, but would effectively amount to the same result, given it is nowhere close to the 90 per cent enrichment needed for most nuclear weapons.
Three Iranian officials said that Tehran may also be willing to offer a long-term suspension of its nuclear programme. In return, they said, it would expect Washington to lift the long-standing sanctions that have contributed to Iran’s economic free-fall.
In January, regional leaders managed to persuade Trump to delay his plans to strike Iran. But as he ordered a military buildup in the region later in the month, they began a new round of intensive shuttle diplomacy to hold talks that could end the stand off.
Their efforts to get the two sides to agree on where to meet — let alone what they will negotiate — have been fraught. Initially, the talks Friday were to be held in Istanbul and attended by senior officials from Turkey, Egypt, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
Iranian officials backed out of that plan, citing concerns that they were being cornered into a negotiation with the entire region.
Smaller talks in Oman were planned instead, with Oman mediating between the US and Iran, but three regional officials said they are struggling to see a way forward on US demands beyond the nuclear issue.
Two of those officials said it would be extremely difficult to agree on a mechanism to effectively monitor whether Iran was continuing to send money or arms to allied militias around the region.
The three officials also said Iran is adamant that it will not make concessions on its ballistic missiles, seeing them as key to its defense against Israel in the event of future attacks.
The 12-day war Israel launched on Iran last June, briefly joined by US warplanes, battered Iran’s nuclear and military facilities. But Israeli officials are still concerned about Iran’s long-range missiles and have repeatedly pushed Washington to press for curbs.
One way out of the sticking points, two of the Middle East officials said, would be for the United States and Iran to make a joint statement committing to further negotiations and vowing to refrain from military action.
“There is a deal to be had, but it’s quite narrow and it’s not a great deal,” said Farzan Sabet, an Iran analyst for the Geneva Graduate Institute in Switzerland. “I consider the odds for even such a narrow deal as comparatively low.”
If Tehran would effectively give up on its nuclear programme, at least during the Trump administration, Trump could sell that as a “big victory without firing a shot”, Sabet added.
“But given the leverage that the US has, and the desire that the US establishment has to solve this Iran issue and move on, it’s also not a great deal from their perspective.”
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
