Iran-US diplomacy needs more than written commitments
By Delaram Ahmadi
Staff writer
After months of deadlock in Iran-US negotiations, the UN General Assembly session provided an opportunity for indirect talks to resume, while Tehran has also put forward a draft memorandum of understanding and is awaiting Washington’s response. The question, however, is what outcome this effort can produce given the experience of the previous Islamabad understanding. In an interview with Iran Daily, international affairs expert Hanif Ghaffari said the Islamabad understanding was based on “commitment” rather than “guarantee”, which ultimately led to its collapse. He stressed that any talks now should focus on guarantees and the mechanisms needed to make the agreed terms enforceable.
IRAN DAILY: What are the differences between Iran’s latest proposal and the previous understanding in Islamabad?
GHAFFARI: The reality is that Iran’s latest proposal, put forward by [Foreign Minister Abbas] Araghchi during indirect talks with US negotiators [Steve] Witkoff and [Jared] Kushner, and which mediators continue to focus on, is essentially a time-compressed version of the Islamabad understanding and does not differ from it in substance. In other words, the new proposal has simply given the Islamabad understanding a faster and more operational form.
This is reflected in the speed and mechanism for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of the US naval blockade, the rapid removal of obstacles to the release of Iran’s frozen assets, and the cessation of US and Israeli attacks on other fronts of the resistance.
Despite Donald Trump’s rejection of Iran’s latest proposal, both sides continue to speak of keeping the negotiations going. What are the main obstacles to reaching an agreement? What factors could pave the way for a new round of talks and help bring the two sides’ positions closer, and conversely, what issues could once again bring the diplomatic process to a halt?
Page 8