For a moment last week, it appeared that the US-Iran talks, which started last month, might be doomed. In an interview with the news website Breitbart, US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff drew a picture of what the US is hoping to achieve in the talks. He affirmed that the US wanted dismantlement of several Iranian nuclear sites and ending enrichment of uranium on Iranian soil. These demands have long been considered a red line for Tehran, which has publicly asserted as much.
The talks with the administration of former US president Barack Obama could go on only after it begrudgingly accepted the principle of Iran’s right to enrichment. Other US officials had previously mused about such demands but coming from Mr Witkoff, the chief US negotiator, it sounded ominous. Some feared that the talks were over.
But, in Muscat last Sunday, Mr Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi spent three hours in negotiations mediated by the Omani Foreign Minister Badr Al Busaidi. Following the talks, both sides expressed optimism. In his usual careful but precise language, Mr Araghchi said the talks had gone well but that they have entered a more serious, and thus difficult, phase.
For his part, US President Donald Trump has spoken glowingly of the talks and of the hopes that he has for Iranian growth and prosperity, should it come to a deal with the US. Mr Trump has even described the current conjuncture as a critical one for Iranian history, where its choices are going to be hugely consequential for its fortunes.
As an Iranian historian, I must agree with Mr Trump on this one. For years now, the Middle East has been undergoing painful and gradual changes. But the region is also moving on a clear trajectory: away from revolutionary and destabilising politics and non-state actors such as militias and towards strong states, which put their own economic development first.
Mr Trump’s economy-first approach and deal-making ethos are well-placed for these dynamics, as are evident by the glowing reception he received during his trip to Saudi Arabia this week. His announcement about lifting all sanctions on Syria’s new administration will be seen in a similar light. In fact, throughout Mr Trump’s trip to the Gulf, which will also include visits to the UAE and Qatar, regional leaders are likely to consult him on the Iran talks.
“I want to make a deal with Iran,” Mr Trump said. “If I can make a deal with Iran, I'll be very happy if we're going to make your region and the world a safer place.”
“But if Iran's leadership rejects this olive branch and continues to attack their neighbours, then we will have no choice but to inflict massive maximum pressure, [and] drive Iranian oil exports to zero, like I did before,” he said in Riyadh, adding: “We'll never allow America and its allies to be threatened with terrorism or nuclear attack. The choice is theirs to make.”
During the last period of major US-Iran talks, from 2013 to 2015, the Gulf countries were apprehensive of Mr Obama’s approach to the negotiations. This time around, they have better ties with Tehran and are likely to welcome a deal reached by Mr Trump that could reduce tensions in the region. Among other things, a deal would serve the common goal of economic development.
Being smart to the regional mood and Mr Trump’s approach, many in the Iranian leadership are trying to entice the US with the economic opportunities that the deal could come with. This is obvious in the approach of Mr Araghchi, who is clearly playing to Mr Trump’s themes. He attacks the previous US administration, under Joe Biden, and criticises the Israeli government for daring to dictate to Mr Trump what he should or should not do. This is quite different from the attitude of former Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who was the architect of the 2015 deal (Mr Araghchi was his deputy during those talks).
Channelling his years of studying in the US, Mr Zarif knew how to speak to liberal media outlets such as CNN and tried to score points in domestic American politics with his dramatic appearances. A calculative career diplomat, who is much less media savvy, Mr Araghchi speaks in a more transactional idiom likely to appeal to Mr Trump.
On the sensitive question of nuclear civil energy, there is even a possibility of partnering with Gulf countries. The UAE has a successful civil nuclear programme, and Saudi Arabia has expressed a strong interest in developing one. If Iranians are adept enough to bring these various interests into a deal, they could creatively reach a compromise with the US in a way that does not violate either sides’ red lines.
The mood in Iran is certainly predisposed to a deal. The country’s beleaguered economy, which has resulted in unprecedented power cuts and budget imbalances, stands in obvious need of a boost that perhaps only a dramatic agreement with the US could give. The talks themselves have helped the Iranian rial rally (at the time of the writing, a US dollar is selling for about 830,000 IRR, down from more than a million before the current talks).
This is another crucial difference between the 2013-15 negotiations and the current round. Back then, Iran's political establishment was bitterly divided over diplomacy. Powerful stakeholders such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps opposed then-president Hassan Rouhani’s gambit. This time around, hardliners opposing the talks are marginalised.
The overwhelming mood in the establishment is for securing a deal. Mostafa Zahrani, a former diplomat at Iran’s permanent mission to the UN, even suggested that Mr Witkoff be invited to Tehran.
Still, there is also a broad consensus over the fact about uranium enrichment being a red line. Reporting to the Parliament on May 13, Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs, affirmed this and said it was a matter of national pride.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has taken a similar posture with regard to Mr Witkoff’s claims about dismantling Iranian nuclear sites. Speaking to the cabinet last week, Dr Pezeshkian said: “Iran will not give up on its peaceful nuclear rights … But we can reassure that the Islamic Republic has never been, is not now and will never be after nuclear weapons.”
The next round of talks will have to wait as Mr Trump continues his trip to the Gulf. Meanwhile, Iranian leaders will meet those of the UK, France and Germany in Istanbul on Friday to discuss the European thinking on the talks. Mr Araghchi has suggested a trip to the European capitals and a potential reset of relations with the continent, in a particular low point following Tehran’s support for Russia against Ukraine.
The Iranian nuclear crisis, which has been continuing since 2002, is a multi-dimensional puzzle, involving various countries in several continents. But this also makes the stakes for solving it high. This might just be the right moment.
