Indirect negotiations are an unwanted gift to the hardliners in the White House

Ali Vaez, Iran Project Manager at the International Crisis Group

Recent developments show that indirect negotiations between Iran and the United States are facing serious challenges. Hardliners such as Rubio and Waltz want maximum concessions from Iran. The time constraints caused by the snapback mechanism and the instability in the U.S. government have darkened the horizon of diplomacy. Estimates show that the risk of war is 75 percent and the chance of a deal is only 25 percent.
Rising tensions between Iran and the United States in recent months have darkened the horizons for diplomacy. Despite efforts to establish diplomatic communication, numerous structural and political obstacles remain.

 The Vague Prospects of a Diplomatic Agreement: Recent developments in the course of negotiations between Iran and the United States further indicate that the prospects for a diplomatic agreement, especially in the context of indirect negotiations, are bleak. While former U.S. President Donald Trump's top priority was to reach a win-win deal with Iran, some influential figures in the U.S. power structure, including Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Michael Waltz, not only do not align with this approach, but are openly seeking maximum concessions from Iran, without being willing to make concessions that would improve Iran's economic conditions or even the Islamic Republic's survival.

 Structural instability in the U.S. government: This difference in goals and approaches is at the root of one of the most important problems facing the current negotiations. The Islamic Republic of Iran has taken the path of indirect negotiations, a method that will not be effective in the current situation of the U.S. administration – a government with a high level of internal instability and turmoil. A clear example of this disorder can be seen in the latest developments in the White House's National Security Council, where the dismissal of several members in the context of a shortage of manpower has added to the magnitude of the challenges.

The choice of the indirect method in practice highlights the power and role of figures such as Rubio and Waltz. It is they who are leading the negotiations, not figures like Steve Woodkoff, the president's special envoy, who, while not ideologically opposed to the deal, cannot actually play an effective role in the mechanism designed by anti-deal hardliners. He is in a situation where he is forced to negotiate behind the scenes and through intermediaries with figures such as Mr. Araghchi or Ravanchi, a process that is fundamentally inefficient and lacks the necessary capacity to reach a real framework for negotiations.

 The threat of the snapback mechanism and the increased risk of conflict: Although the aim of these indirect negotiations is to reach a point for the start of direct talks, given the existing time constraints and the pressure of the snapback mechanism that may be activated by mid-July, it is unlikely that such a process will be able to bear fruit in time. The reality is that in order to postpone the snapback mechanism, there is a need for bargaining and bargaining, which is impossible from the current path and with intermediaries who have no incentive to reach an agreement.

 Even Steve Woodkoff's recent tweet to Araghchi, which was quickly deleted, speaks volumes about the fact that only at the highest level of the U.S. power pyramid is there a real desire for diplomacy. The power structure in which Rubio and Waltz are instrumental is indirectly blocking the path to an agreement and heading in the same direction as we saw in 2019: diplomatic impasse, escalation, and ultimately entering a cycle that leads to military conflict. This time, however, given the new circumstances, Israel also has more leeway to initiate such conflicts.

 Overall, if a balance were to be drawn between the probability of reaching an agreement and the possibility of a military conflict, the evidence and trends show that the risk of war is about 75 percent and the chance of an agreement is only 25 percent. In such a situation, the horizon for diplomacy, especially in the framework chosen today, is not only unclear, but also worrisomely bleak.

 News Source: IranMan