Iran’s Risky Game: Bluff and Hardball in Nuclear Talks
The dynamic between Iran and the United States remains fraught with tension, characterized by posturing and military displays that often obscure the underlying realities. As negotiations resume, a familiar pattern emerges: Iran adopting maximalist positions reminiscent of previous, ultimately stalled, talks. This occurs despite significant weakening of the Iranian economy and military capabilities in recent months.
Recent Setbacks for Iran
Since the abrupt halt to negotiations last June following an Israeli attack, Iran has faced a series of challenges. The vulnerabilities of its air defenses and the extent of Israeli intelligence penetration within its political, military, and scientific sectors were exposed during a 12-day conflict. Over 30 Iranian military commanders were killed, and 160 strikes targeted Iranian military installations.
Further compounding these issues, the US launched strikes in June against Iran’s major nuclear sites at Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz, effectively dismantling much of its nuclear program. UN-wide sanctions were reimposed in September, and in January, the US imposed a 25% tariff on goods from countries trading with Iran.
Economic Strain and Internal Unrest
These actions have had a tangible impact on Iran’s economy. The Iranian currency has lost more than half its value against the dollar, and food inflation is rapidly approaching three digits. These economic pressures contributed to nationwide protests in January, which were met with a violent crackdown by security forces, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Iranians. The government continues to heavily censor the internet, even a month after the protests began.
A Surprisingly Confident Stance
Despite these setbacks, Iran’s negotiators are displaying a surprising level of confidence, behaving as if the government was not on the brink of collapse. They are dictating the terms of the talks, including the venue and main topic of discussion. Experienced negotiators from Iran, like those involved in the 2013-15 nuclear deal, are known for their legalistic approach, stamina, and toughness, always seeking “one more thing” in negotiations.
Why the Hardline Approach?
One explanation for Iran’s unwavering stance is a belief that Donald Trump will not risk a military attack, given the potential for disproportionate retaliation from Iran and the resulting destabilization of the region, potentially angering Gulf states. Hamidreza Azizi of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs suggests a consensus exists within Iran’s security elite that Trump is averse to “prolonged and messy wars at high cost.”
Iran seemingly believes Trump lacks a clear strategy for regime change within Iran or any interest in actively supporting the opposition, both inside and outside the country. There appears to be a lack of understanding within the US administration of how the political landscape within Iran might shift in the event of military action.
Divergent Views on Potential Intervention
Supporters of Reza Pahlavi, son of the deposed Shah, argue that a US attack could galvanize the Iranian population to return to the streets, potentially leading to a more organized and resolute uprising. However, other dissidents express caution. Mir Hossein Mousavi, a former Iranian prime minister, advocates for a peaceful and democratic transition of power, while Mehdi Mahmoudian warns that war would undermine domestic democratic agency and deepen social divisions.
Despite these differing views, many Iranian dissidents are demanding fundamental change, whether through reform or revolution. A statement issued in January by a group of 17 activists called for the prosecution of those responsible for repression and a democratic process to determine Iran’s political future. Several signatories of this statement have since been arrested.
FAQ
Q: What is the current status of negotiations between Iran and the US?
A: Negotiations are set to resume, but Iran is adopting maximalist positions similar to those that led to previous talks being halted.
Q: What impact have sanctions had on Iran?
A: Sanctions have significantly weakened the Iranian economy, leading to currency devaluation and high food inflation.
Q: Is there internal opposition to the current Iranian government?
A: Yes, there is significant internal opposition, with various groups advocating for different forms of change, ranging from reform to revolution.
Q: What is the US stance on potential military intervention in Iran?
A: The US administration appears to lack a clear plan for what would follow a military intervention, according to some reports.
Did you realize? Iran’s negotiators are known for their tenacity and legalistic approach, often seeking concessions even at the very end of negotiations.
Pro Tip: Understanding the internal dynamics within Iran, including the diverse views of the opposition, is crucial for assessing the potential outcomes of any negotiations or interventions.
Want to learn more about the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East? Explore our other articles on the region.
