When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Geopolitics

Tehran's Power Delusions May Be The Biggest Obstacle To A Nuclear Deal

Authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran have laid out tough conditions for a nuclear deal. They apparently live in a parallel world, oblivious to the reality of Iran's weakness after years of international economic isolation.

Photo of reflections in front of Tehran's Azadi Tower
Hamed Mohammadi

Editorial-

LONDON — The foreign minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, observed in a television interview in October 2021 that negotiating wasn't simply "sipping coffee" with the other side, apparently taking a jab at the last set of regime diplomats negotiating over Iran's nuclear dossier in Vienna. He also told the United States it should unblock U.S. $10 billion in frozen Iranian assets to show its goodwill in currently stalled talks to revive the 2015 nuclear pact with world powers.


Then in November 2021, the regime's new chief negotiator in Vienna, Ali Baqeri Kani, told The Guardian newspaper that the United States must end sanctions on the Islamic Republic and guarantee that future administrations would never ditch any agreement reached — as the Trump administration did in 2018 with the 2015 pact. These were maximalist positions meant to enthuse a conservative audience at home and following the so-called "Qasem Line" in foreign policy. The Qasem or "Haj Qasem" line means adopting assertive, combative positions exemplified by the disruptive regional activities of Qasem Soleimani, the Revolutionary Guards general killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2020. Some in Iran even began calling Amir-Abdollahian the "Haj Qasem of diplomacy."

After Qasem Soleimani's death, regime radicals in Tehran said anyone speaking of talks with America should have "their mouth smashed." When the Revolutionary Guards fired rockets on a base in Iraq in retaliation for the killing (though they first warned the Americans!), Amir-Abdollahian said this was a reprisal for Soleimani's car, not the "martyred" general himself, and the Americans should expect worse. This was all talk, of course. The regime's top authorities had decided talks must resume and the Haj Qasem of diplomacy would lead them.

The regime, responding to dire economic conditions, quietly decided it could forego one of its "red lines", which was for the West to remove the Revolutionary Guards from its terrorist list. It even provoked the ire of its own conservatives. Then it conceded that the United States wouldn't have to commit future administrations to any pact agreed on in Vienna. But the United States gave no assurances.

The battles for concessions

With talks halted in Vienna, Iranians met in Doha with the E.U. foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, to discuss how to revive them. The U.S. diplomat Robert Malley called that meeting a waste of time, though its effects were felt in a June 30 meeting of the U.N. Security Council. The session to revise Resolution 2231 (and lift sanctions on Iran) was so hostile to the Islamic Republic as to prompt a former foreign minister, Aliakbar Salehi, to warn the regime of harsh consequences for ordinary Iranians if the 2015 pact were not revived.

While both Iranians and Americans blame each other for blocking progress, it seems both sides in fact have further expectations usually not mentioned in public. Each side, more importantly, wants to use a nuclear accord to damage the other side's interests.

The very idea of another pact with the West has fueled political rifts in Tehran.

Some of these expectations have been made public, like Iran demanding assurances for the future, or the West wanting Iran to simply stop uranium enrichment. But there must be more. The West wants Tehran to stop developing ballistic missiles and its meddling in the Middle East. Some have said it hopes a new pact to be a prelude to pressuring the Islamic Republic to end its hostility to Israel. The Islamic Republic expects a deal to include an end to the West's investigations into the regime's secret weapons program, while some in Iran have said the United States must commit to the Islamic Republic's continuation. Still, the very idea of another pact with the West has fueled political rifts in Tehran.

Another sticking point may be the case of the Ukrainian passenger plane shot down as it left Tehran in early 2020. The Iranian regime says the plane was downed accidentally, but relatives of victims suspect the case has gone quiet for becoming tied up with nuclear talks. The regime will naturally expect the West to also end scrutiny of this crime as part of the "bigger" nuclear pact.

The West will in turn want the Islamic Republic to sign the FATF or multilateral pact to curb money-laundering. In Tehran, some politicians have said this would expose the country's — and the state's — financial transactions to scrutiny by "enemies." The West says Tehran must end its habits of "arresting" or kidnapping dual-nationals in Iran, hounding Iranian exiles and engaging in terrorism. But these are precisely Iran's favored, and only, levers to win concessions from Western states.

Hossein Amir-Abdollahian

The foreign minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, at a press conference in Tehran.

Iranian Foreign Ministry/ZUMA

A parallel world

The 2015 pact showed that the most fundamental issues are negotiated in very private sessions.

Recently, security services in the German state of Hamburg reported on the arrest of an Iranian-German citizen suspected of sending out sanctioned parts for Iran's nuclear program. The report observed that Iran's Information ministry was active on German soil. European states are aware of such incidents but prefer to keep them quiet. A Belgian citizen was held by the Revolutionary Guards for months for example, though the Belgian government said nothing about it. Likewise, the United Kingdom said nothing for seven months about a consignment of Iranian rockets it had confiscated.

Likewise, the West knows the Iranian regime is quietly advancing toward obtaining weapons-grade uranium. But, perhaps for diplomacy's sake, both sides like to give the impression of normality. Yet, Iran has been purging and reshuffling officials after the seemingly targeted killings of senior soldiers and scientists in Iran. One reformist journalist, Abbas Abdi, has said the regime seems to be at war again, as it was in the 1980s against Iraq.

The discord over the resumption of talks and their costs is in Iran, not in the West.

The talk at the top is different. The head of the Revolutionary Guards, Hussein Salami, an opponent of a deal with the West, insists Iran's real strength is in the people's "faith and awareness" and Khamenei's "brave leadership." Apparently speaking from a parallel universe, he claims the Americans even admit that not having a cleric as head of state was a national weakness.

In the parallel world in which many of Iran's leaders exist, the Islamic Republic's power has cast an awesome shadow on Iran, the region and the world. Yet the discord over the resumption of talks and their costs is in Iran, not in the West.

Certainly, the decision lies with Ayatollah Khamenei, who may himself be confused about the wisdom of continued resistance to the West. He wants to be sure he can claim for himself the benefits of a pact, and squarely pin its costs on subordinates. Yet, delay can only weaken the regime's negotiating hand. Khamenei used to boast "there won't be a war, and we won't negotiate." He has found himself forced to talk with the West — and not as far from a war as he would like.

You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Stories from the best international journalists.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
Already a subscriber? Log in

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
Russia

What Is Putin’s Endgame In Odessa?

The timing and location of Russia's latest attacks shows that the southern Ukrainian city is more important than ever to the Russian leader, for symbolic and strategic reasons.

Smoke rises after one of the recent Russian attacks in Odessa.

Nina Liashonok/Ukrinform via ZUMA
Cameron Manley

-Analysis-

When Moscow and Kyiv signed their UN-brokered "Black Sea initiative" deal Friday in Istanbul, Ukraine’s southern ports were set to reopen and resume the regular flow of wheat and maize exports.

But within hours the most important of those Ukrainian ports came under fire from a Russian missile attack. Moscow, after first denying responsibility, later claimed to having launched the strike at military targets and that no grain storage facilities had been hit.

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

"The attack is connected exclusively with military infrastructure. This is in no way related to the infrastructure that is used to fulfill the agreements and export of grain," Kremlin spokesman Dmitriy Peskovtold state-run media site Ria Novosti.

And yet, it is impossible to deny that the timing — and location — was anything but intentional.

Keep reading...Show less

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Stories from the best international journalists.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
Already a subscriber? Log in
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS

Central to the tragic absurdity of this war is the question of language. Vladimir Putin has repeated that protecting ethnic Russians and the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine was a driving motivation for his invasion.

Yet one month on, a quick look at the map shows that many of the worst-hit cities are those where Russian is the predominant language: Kharkiv, Odesa, Kherson.

Watch VideoShow less
MOST READ