Gholamreza Sadeghian
Dr. Abbas Araqchi, the Iranian Foreign Minister, announced that he will begin indirect talks with the US representative in Oman on Saturday. The reaction of analysts and commentators so far has focused more on how to negotiate “indirectly” than on the substance of the event, and has sometimes taken on a humorous aspect.
Until now, it seemed that Iran’s reason for avoiding direct negotiations was to avoid giving “full recognition” to the negotiating party, but from Mr. Araghchi’s words, it can be understood that the concern about the kind of disrespectful and domineering confrontation on the part of the American side, which is influenced by Trump’s meeting with Zelensky, and could end the negotiations at the very beginning, has been added to the first reason.
However, I believe that the best political behavior of the people and political activists in the face of Araghchi’s trip should be that everyone fully sympathizes with and supports this trip and decision at the beginning. If it continues and comes to fruition – which our evidence and experience say is unlikely – so much the better. And if something happens that Tehran’s suggestion to the Foreign Minister was to leave the negotiations, we should still have the same empathy that we had when Mr. Araghchi went to Oman when he returns, and this is the best message to America.
Some have already started to sabotage his departure, saying, “Where are you going, Araghchi? It’s no use!” This group is more unprincipled and narcissistic than the fundamentalists. On the other hand, if the Foreign Minister abandons the negotiations for any reason, whether through his own understanding or America’s sabotage, others will attack him, and this second group of reformists are incompetent and crazy.
The first group does not consider that the principle of accepting negotiations between Iran and the United States is a sign of Iran’s power. Trump is already giving orders to the whole world, and some are turning a blind eye and not talking to anyone. The second group, although recognizes that abandoning negotiations for any reason is still a sign of Iran’s power, is fundamentally unwilling to watch such displays of power by Iran! What both groups lack in themselves is a desire for the truth and the overall interest of the country. Faction play is a priority for them.
But how do these negotiations continue, are they on the right track, and what important things will be said in them? We can make some predictions.
First, Iran may accept a reduction in enrichment on its own part. This should not be considered a retreat by Iran. Maintaining the nuclear industry and enrichment to a percentage that meets our non-weapons needs is what we have been saying and demanding for years.
In return for reducing the level of enrichment and increasing oversight, Iran must receive the concession of completely lifting sanctions and abandoning open hostilities in the form of supporting the opposition. Past experiences have also shown that the United States is not committed, so the method of work must also change. This is the most difficult and complicated part of the negotiations, which is why its process may be long or even fruitless or may not last the life of this US administration.
Some optimistically say that Trump can lift all sanctions with a single order. No! The single orders you hear from him are for more sanctions and higher tariffs against the world, not to make things easier for countries. With what history and evidence do you make such a possibility? Even on paper, it is not like that, and the issue will be very complicated.
However, in the first step, if the lifting of sanctions is traded with a reduction in enrichment, it would be logical.
Regarding missiles, Iran will definitely not start any talks, whether they continue or not. This is where the negotiations could end, and perhaps the US has included it in the discussions for this very purpose, that is, to make the negotiations inconclusive!
Regarding regional forces, it has already been said that we do not have a proxy force, and Iran will probably ask the US to negotiate with those forces themselves.
Another issue is the economic interests of both sides. If Iran’s economic interests are achieved from the negotiations, it can be accepted that some American companies will find the opportunity to invest or sell their products in Iran. In fact, if the sanctions are lifted, it is the companies themselves that will welcome trade or investment, and Iran is unlikely to refuse.
However, if what has been said about the form of the negotiations is not properly clarified by Saturday, it will probably be clarified that day with the images of the cameras. In two separate buildings? In one building, but in two separate rooms? In one room, but with the third side of the triangle being Oman? In what language? Iran speaks Persian, the interpreter translates into Arabic for the Omani side, the Omani side conveys its understanding in Arabic or English to the American side, and the same goes for the return message? This shows that the transmission of the message must be done entirely in a language that is understandable to the other side. Perhaps it would be better for Iran to write down everything it says in English at each meeting and provide it to the Omani side so that nothing is added or subtracted.
Although we have no evidence to support these negotiations, wait……….