Rational, flexible diplomacy key to easing tensions
By Ali Bigdeli
International relations scholar
Iran–US relations have reached a complex and difficult stage. Given the United States’ apparent reluctance to resume talks, it is clear that Iran must first sort out its issues with Europe—via the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—before approaching Washington.
The three European JCPOA members—Britain, France, and Germany—are attempting to resolve differences with Iran without invoking the snapback mechanism. I proposed designing an initiative under which the IAEA, through changes in the inspection team or oversight framework, would visit Iran’s nuclear facilities and present a comprehensive report to the Board of Governors. That report could inform European members of the council about the status of Iran’s nuclear sites. However, Iran deems this approach not viable in terms of security.
Iran now finds itself in an extremely complicated phase—both in relation to Europe and the snapback issue, and vis‑à‑vis the United States. In effect, four pillars of pressure—America, Europe, Israel, and the IAEA—are squeezing Iran. The country must seek to reduce this tension and pressure through the nuclear agency. After all, policy is fluid and changes with time. A politician who insists on previous positions cannot navigate diplomacy successfully.
Iran cannot remain at a standstill and expect breakthroughs. It must revise its pre‑set strategies and shift its expectations. A recalibration of Iran’s foreign policy is essential—at minimum, an agreement with European partners must be hammered out. In the absence of a deal with Europe over snapback, negotiation with the US seems impossible.
Iran has demanded guarantees from the US that it will not be attacked, and some form of trust‑building. Of course, in politics there is no absolute “trust‑building;” nations remain inherently skeptical of each other—but it is precisely this skepticism that leads to the signing of agreements.
Page 8