Pitfalls of oversimplifying negotiations
By Ebrahim Beheshti
Journalist
These days, the potential negotiations between Iran and the US have become a topic of polarization among supporters and opponents. This is not the first time, and it probably will not be the last.
Both sides, within the legal and customary frameworks, have the right to criticize, express opinions, and provide analysis, which can ultimately contribute to expert assessments of diplomatic talks, whether with the US or other countries.
However, it seems that the issue of Tehran-Washington negotiations is being noticeably oversimplified by both proponents and opponents. It is as if there is no historical precedent or experience, no obstacles to negotiations, and both sides can start talks and reach a deal as soon as they decide to.
Opponents take a firm stance, viewing any dialogue with the US as an outright betrayal of the Establishment and the people, as if the other side has already rolled out the red carpet for the Iranian negotiators, and the only remaining issue is the composition of Iran’s delegation! Moreover, this group of actors likely assumes that entering negotiations means striking an agreement, and given their negative perception of the JCPOA, they consider Tehran as a player destined to lose. Therefore, based on this analytical framework, they deem any negotiation with the US invalid.
On the other hand, some supporters of US-Iran negotiations believe that the new US administration will welcome talks with Iran under any circumstances, and the only remaining factor for starting talks and hammering out a deal is the will of the Iranian government. In this context, they see the government the sole and ultimate decision-maker. Some in this camp even assume that negotiations will lead to an agreement in a few days or weeks.
The will of both parties to adopt a diplomatic path to manage tensions and, if possible, settle or partially resolve differences is an important factor and, in fact, the beginning of a process. However, mere will is not sufficient. Even to kickstart negotiations, the existence of will is necessary but not sufficient. As President Masoud Pezeshkian said a while ago: “Trump must first prove that he will keep his word. We will talk when he keeps his promises.”
Page 7