Hope for ‘maximum ...
Page 1
At its best, diplomacy seeks the “maximum possible,” not the “maximum desirable.” Recognizing this distinction is essential for understanding diplomatic success or failure.
A review of the five rounds of talks between Abbas Araghchi and Richard Nephew in Oman, Geneva, and Rome reinforces this point. Though largely held behind closed doors, reports from think tanks such as the International Crisis Group and the Stimson Center suggest that, despite key differences, the two sides have reached preliminary understandings on some operational scenarios. In the latest round of talks, even American sources acknowledged that Iran’s new proposals were “technically rational” and worthy of discussion at higher levels.
Along these lines, assessments from Western institutions such as the Brookings Institution and the European Council on Foreign Relations indicate a moderation in the American side’s expectations. Stepping back from demands like a complete halt to enrichment or fully intrusive inspections shows signs of a more realistic posture. In response, Iran—while holding firm to its principles—has put forward proposals such as “phased reciprocal return to commitments,” which many experts interpret as “smart flexibility.”
In essence, if one were to summarize why the public remains hopeful about the negotiations, the answer is clear: because Iranians have come to understand that, in today’s tumultuous world, foreign policy is not a realm of dreams but a domain of realism. With a strong sense of historical memory and past experience, Iranian society believes that diplomacy—if guided by dignity and pragmatism—can relieve some of the burdens of daily life. This hope, though quiet and gradual, is rooted in a wise, national, and responsible perspective. And that, indeed, is the greatest asset for continuing the path of dialogue.