‘Token enrichment’ aimed ...
Page 1
In your view, could such a proposal help break the current deadlock over enrichment?
Proposals of this nature may stem from what could be described as the US side’s maximalist approach. In any negotiation, there is inevitably give-and-take. If one party receives concessions, it must also grant concessions. However, since they have sought to apply maximum pressure while also putting forward maximum demands, they resort to such terminology. If this spirit governs other issues as well, it could act as an obstacle rather than a facilitator, as has been the case so far. Still, the American side faces pressure domestically from certain factions and lobbies, as well as externally from actors such as Israel. The use of such terms may therefore be aimed at easing the atmosphere and reducing those pressures. From that perspective, it may assist the American side itself to some extent—rather than the negotiation process or Iran. Otherwise, it offers no particular advantage to the Iranian side or to the talks.
How do you assess the narrative gap between Iranian officials and US media reports regarding the content of the recent talks? Is it a matter of negotiation tactics, a battle of narratives, or genuine differences in interpretation?
By occasionally leaking incomplete or even inaccurate information, the American side attempts to turn up the heat on Iran’s negotiating team, either at the table or outside the negotiating room, and in effect cast a shadow over the quality of negotiations or the manner in which the Iranian team grants concessions. Previously, Western media consistently reported that the US position was zero enrichment and that enrichment would not be accepted at all. Now, however, it is being suggested that a certain level of enrichment might be acceptable. From a psychological standpoint, such positioning may be important for the Americans; first, to avoid coming under pressure for having granted excessive concessions to Iran; and second, because the Trump administration, even while engaging in diplomatic talks with Iran, appears intent on preserving the prestige of maximum pressure and avoiding being accused of backing down—even if it steps back from the idea of zero enrichment and accepts enrichment at some level. From the outset, it was conceivable that if an agreement were to be reached, enrichment levels or the scale of enrichment in Iran would be significantly reduced. This does not necessarily contradict that prospect.
Araghchi has rejected any proposal for a temporary halt or suspension of enrichment by Iran. What do you see as the source of such claims in Western media? Could this be part of psychological pressure or an effort to manage domestic and international expectations?
Beyond the political-level negotiations being pursued, there is a battle of narratives unfolding between the two sides. Moreover, in economic, security, and even military domains, threats, pressures, and measures are seen from the American side, while the Iranian side has sought to adopt countermeasures in response. Narratives can, in essence, lay the groundwork for certain policies or even shape emerging trends. The American proposal under the banner of zero enrichment has long been their genuine policy demand—not only during Trump’s tenure but also under previous US presidents, who likewise sought to ensure that Iran would have no enrichment capability at all. However, they were unable to achieve that objective.
At the current juncture, despite having effectively accepted the issue of enrichment in principle, their repeated references to it outside the negotiating room appear intended to create ambiguity and doubt, thereby exerting pressure on Iran to extract concessions in other areas. In effect, they seek to let uncertainty hang over the talks and use it as psychological leverage.