Strategic containment still tops economic gains in Washington’s calculus
On the eve of a new round of talks between Iran and the United States, Hamid Qanbari, deputy foreign minister for diplomacy, has said that shared interests in oil and gas, joint fields, mining investments and even aircraft purchases have been built into the negotiating framework. He added that in the previous 2015 agreement, namely Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the US did not reap economic benefits, and stressed that for any future deal to endure, it was necessary for Washington to also benefit from sectors with high and fast returns.
At the same time, Majid Takht-Ravanchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister for political affairs, told the BBC that the issue of zero enrichment was no longer under discussion and, as far as Iran was concerned, it was not on the negotiating table. Such remarks may point to a degree of flexibility by the parties to move past the current stalemate. Yet whether they will ultimately lead to a lasting agreement remains uncertain. Abdollah Razavi, an international affairs analyst, told Iran Daily that creating economic incentives for the United States does not guarantee Washington’s long-term commitment, as geopolitical considerations still take precedence over economic logic.
IRAN DAILY: Could the creation of tangible economic benefits for the US increase its motivation to show greater flexibility and remain committed to a potential agreement?
RAZAVI: Creating economic incentives for the United States appears, on the surface, to be an attempt at “locking in interests.” However, the core problem in the US power structure is not a lack of interests, but the dominance of geopolitical and ideological considerations over economic logic.
Page 2