Monday’s summit in the Egyptian city of Sharm El Sheikh, where US President Donald Trump led a signing ceremony for a Gaza ceasefire deal, was heavy on symbolism but short on details. Yet it truly represented a milestone.
After more than two years of war and the deaths of tens of thousands of men, women and children, Mr Trump helped broker a cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hamas. The hope now is that this would eventually pave the way for a peaceful settlement between Palestine and Israel.
Apart from the host country, a number of other nations were represented at the summit, including some at the highest level. But two countries were notable for their absence: Israel and Iran.
Despite receiving an invitation from Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El Sisi, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian did not attend. They did not send a representative either.
Mr Netanyahu initially accepted the invitation before excusing himself, citing a Jewish holiday. This set off speculation as to what was truly behind the change of heart – ranging from his current profile as a global pariah with an International Criminal Court arrest warrant in his name, to alleged boycott threats from some countries’ representatives, and possible domestic political backlash from the far right.
Iran’s leadership, on the other hand, was more forthcoming about the reason for its non-attendance. In a message thanking Mr El Sisi for his invitation, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said neither he nor Mr Pezeshkian “can engage with counterparts who have attacked the Iranian people and continue to threaten and sanction us” – a clear reference to the US – although he added that Tehran welcomes any initiative that ends the bloodshed in Gaza.
Nonetheless, the decision to skip the summit reflects a lack of diplomatic resolve on Iran’s part. Its choice to blow an opportunity to create some thaw in the Iran-US relationship – following what could have been a first-ever meeting between the sitting presidents of the two countries – signals the state of paralysis the country finds itself in since the Israeli and American strikes on it in June. Interestingly, this is the same Iranian establishment that protested at being excluded from the 1991 Madrid peace conference between the Palestinian and Israeli delegations.
Yet, at a time when finding a resolution to the Palestine question has once again become an urgent global priority, Tehran’s maximalist position – which seeks the destruction of Israel – bucks the two-state consensus and gives its leadership little room to fruitfully engage with the rest of the world.
That said, the very question of engagement continues to animate Iran’s political elites.
On Sunday, as the news of Mr El Sisi’s invitation emerged, many prominent public intellectuals and political figures called for Mr Pezeshkian to accept it.
In a post on X, the political scientist Sadegh Zibakalam said the Iranian President should “not to miss this historic opportunity, for the sake of happiness of future generations and Iran’s future”. Iran’s foreign policy, he said, “must shift from ideology to national interests”. Mohammad Ghouchani, a veteran reformist journalist, chimed in by calling for Iran to “shock the world” by ending its “diplomatic isolation”. Even Hamas has engaged in diplomacy, he pointed out in a piece he co-authored with the conservative journalist Mohammad Mohajeri.
Hamid Abutalebi, a former ambassador to Italy who also served as an aide to ex-president Hassan Rouhani, said the invitation showed that the US had changed its approach towards Tehran and that it was incumbent upon the Iranian leadership to seize this opportunity. Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, who previously headed the Parliament’s national security committee, said going to Sharm El Sheikh could be “a serious opportunity for de-escalation” and that Iran could help further isolate Israel by attending the summit.
The debate continued even after Mr Araghchi announced Iran had declined the invitation. “Do we have a foreign ministry just to engage with our friends?” Abdollah Ramezanzadeh, a former government spokesperson, asked rhetorically. “How do wars ever end?”
Gholamhossein Karbaschi, a former mayor of Tehran, questioned Mr Araghchi’s claim that Iran couldn’t negotiate with countries that had attacked it, pointing out that Tehran had engaged with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq despite waging an eight-year-long war with it. “Wouldn’t it have been better if you went there to expose things and raise the cry of oppression faced by the Iranian nation?” he added.
The retorts came thick and fast.
Ayatollah Mohajerani, a former culture minister, said Iran’s decision was “rational and logical” and described Mr Trump’s initiative as “theatre” – as did the conservative MP Mojtaba Zarei. Fars News Agency, close to the influential Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, criticised the reformist camp’s support for “accidental diplomacy”, which it said amounted to pushing Mr Pezeshkian to attend the summit in the hope that he would “accidentally” run into Mr Trump.
Another outlet, the Tehran-based daily Hamshahri, ran a list of 10 reasons why Iran was right not to attend – including “not giving legitimacy to normalisation with Israel”. Other publications published similar analyses.
In the end, the argument against attending won out, yet the question as to how Iran should deal with Mr Trump’s America continues to haunt its leadership.
In his speech to the Israeli Knesset on Monday, the US President called on Tehran to accept Israel’s right to exist and end its support for armed proxies across the Middle East. “We are ready when you are,” he said, offering Iran’s leaders “a hand of friendship and co-operation”.
This isn’t the first time Mr Trump has reached out to Tehran. This isn’t the first time he has called for its leaders to make serious concessions either (referring, of course, to the need for Iran to compromise on its nuclear weapons programme in exchange for sanctions relief). In other words, the Trump administration’s position hasn’t changed.
What also hasn’t changed is the Iranian leadership’s interest in talking to Washington. In which case, why wait? Iran’s economic conditions are deteriorating, and there is no guarantee Israel won’t renew its strikes on the country.
If it genuinely seeks to chart a way forward, Tehran simply has to get over its current analysis paralysis.
