Iran’s response to ...
Page 1
Israel has sought to push radical or maximalist demands onto the American side for pursuit at the negotiating table. Part of the responsibility for this also lies with the Trump administration, which has left the door open to the influence of the Israeli lobby, allowing Israel to capitalize on that opportunity.
Beyond that, President Trump’s own personal characteristics and political style have made reaching an agreement more difficult. Iran-US negotiations are not built on trust. However, for any negotiating process to reach a tangible outcome, there must at least be a degree of confidence within the negotiating framework itself—not necessarily between the parties, but confidence in the process. Because that stability and predictability have been lacking, and because the American side has not demonstrated a consistent approach, the prospects for any agreement have become increasingly uncertain.
The United States appears to be seeking an agreement that delivers gains without requiring meaningful concessions. It wants to claim that any deal it reaches is better than the Obama-era agreement—or even the best agreement ever achieved. That makes the negotiating environment even more difficult.
At the same time, because Trump previously criticized the Obama administration for easing sanctions and providing funds to Iran, he remains concerned that if an understanding is reached and similar measures are taken, he will face criticism and political pressure from his rivals or even from within his own camp, and particularly from Israel. As a result, he repeatedly shifts his positions, making the prospect of an agreement even more challenging.
Moreover, the two sides are still in the phase of seeking common ground and drafting a framework, which can differ substantially from actual implementation.Reaching an understanding is not the end of the process; it is only the beginning. Yet even at this preliminary stage, no agreement has been achieved.
It appeared that by making positive statements about the possibility of an understanding, the United States was primarily seeking to buy time and prolong the process. This would allow economic pressure to remain in place, enable Israel to continue its actions in Lebanon, and allow the United States to periodically take steps in the Strait of Hormuz without offering concessions. At the same time, it would help preserve stability in financial and energy markets and prevent tensions from escalating beyond a certain threshold.
Taken together, these factors provide little reason for optimism about the prospects of reaching a genuine understanding.