Why chance of success in Iran-US peace talks is slim
Virtually every point of the Iranian peace plan stands in contradiction to stated American and Israeli war aims
For more than a month the world has watched as the Middle East has been has plunged into yet another war between the US, Israeli and Iran. The Americans and Israelis have mounted a missile and bombing campaign of surpassing violence, targeting Iran’s political, military and intelligence leadership, air defence systems as well as military and naval assets and infrastructure.
The political purpose of these attacks, at least for the Trump administration, has never been clear. Initially the US President described them as regime change. But the deaths of many leading figures within the Iranian government did not cause regime collapse.
It is now clear that the Iranians planned for this outcome and a new cohort of senior political and military leaders, all of whom are at least as radically anti-American, has emerged to take over the reins of government.
The stated aims of the campaign then shifted to eliminating Iran’s nuclear programme (which the Trump administration claimed to have “obliterated” during the ‘Twelve Day War’ last June). But this objective is not achievable without a corresponding ground campaign to take control of Iranian uranium enriching facilities and pave the way for a nuclear inspection regime. The American public is clearly opposed to such a campaign.
A threat to the global economy
Iran responded with waves of ballistic missile and drone attacks of its own, aimed at Israel and US military bases across the Middle East. Yet its most effective response has been to close the Strait of Hormuz, the vital shipping artery through which more than one-fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas flows daily.
The closure of the Strait shook international markets and threatened the global economy. Oil prices spiked and stock prices plunged. In the West, the result has been much higher petrol prices and the danger of an inflationary spiral.
The situation is much worse in the Asian and Pacific economies, which are more dependent on Middle Eastern energy and are experiencing a severe shortages. The world economy is very likely headed toward a sharp recession.
Latterly the focus of the US-Israeli air offensive has shifted to degrading or destroying Iran’s naval assets. Operations against the Iranian navy have failed utterly to open the Strait of Hormuz and relieve the pressure on the global economy or petrol prices.
Tehran regime unmoved by Iranian casualties
Donald Trump has found Iran’s refusal to knuckle under immensely frustrating. The regime, which appears to be dominated by senior figures within the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, is not moved by the death and suffering caused by the war. Its clear priority is its own survival and it counts on the political leverage it possesses through its ability to close the Strait to global shipping.
The stand-off reached a crescendo over last weekend. Under pressure at home, and using increasingly hysterical language, Trump implored Iran to open the Straits and threatened to destroy Iran’s “whole civilisation” if the Strait were not opened by Tuesday evening.
This was shocking language from an American president that was widely interpreted as a threat to use weapons of mass destruction. But the Iranians understood that the threat lacked substance and remained defiant.
Tension was ratcheted down when the Pakistani government, which has been trying to mediate an end to the war, proposed a two-week ceasefire. The proposal evidently carried with it the prior approval of the Trump administration. It was accepted with hours to spare by Tehran, which had little to lose in doing so.
READ MORE: Iran War shows why we can't trust Reform UK to make 'big, important, once-in-a-generation decisions'
Israel excluded
Both sides have since claimed victory. The Trump administration has implausibly claimed to have secured “complete and total regime change” and insisted that they have destroyed Iran’s military capacity. Neither claim holds water given Iranian missile and drone attacks across the region on Wednesday.
The Iranians, a little more persuasively, have claimed that the US has accepted their “Ten-Point Plan” for peace as the basis of negotiations. This plan includes a guarantee against future US aggression, maintenance of Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, an end to Israeli attacks on Iran’s ‘proxy’ ally Hezbollah in Lebanon, and, most sensationally, acceptance of Iran’s right to nuclear enrichment.
Virtually every point of the Iranian plan stands in contradiction to stated American and Israeli war aims. Israel, which seems to have been excluded from the preliminary talks leading to the ceasefire, has no incentive to comply with Iranian terms and has continued its operations in Lebanon.
The ceasefire is thus partial and deeply uncertain. After falling on Wednesday, oil prices were again rising on Thursday. With no guarantees, tanker traffic through the Strait has not resumed.
What are the prospects the crisis can be resolved? The ceasefire is promising mainly because it constitutes an agreement by the US and Iran to talk to one another. Negotiations are set to begin this weekend. But the two sides remain far apart in their core aims and have already begun bickering over the bases of the coming negotiations.
Economic future at stake
The Trump administration is under pressure to find an exit ramp that will allow it to end an unpopular, expensive and essentially unproductive air campaign. But it will find it very difficult to come away from the talks with nothing to show for its military effort.
Iran, for its part, is unlikely to agree to open the Strait without guarantees against future bombing. Its chokehold over the route provides it with crucial leverage.
Israel, meanwhile, is relegated to the status of onlooker in the negotiations but retains the ability to undermine them and destroy the tenuous ceasefire if its concludes it threatens its vital interest in weakening Iran.
Chances of success are therefore slim. The world will look on anxiously with prospects for market stabilisation and economic recovery hanging in the balance.
Professor Peter Jackson is chair in global security at the University of Glasgow and co-director of the Scottish Council on Global Affairs
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.