The Middle East needs the US and Iran to strike a deal – not escalate tensions

An anti-US mural in Tehran. In the already-fraught US-Iran talks, too much is on the line and the situation is too combustible. EPA

For days, the US maintained that the sixth round of its nuclear negotiations with Iran would take place on Thursday, June 12. Officials in Tehran, meanwhile, insisted the correct date was June 15, as Iran’s chief negotiator, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, would be attending an event in Oslo on June 12.

Were it happening in any other context and between any other two countries, this minor scheduling conflict would be a temporary inconvenience. But in these already-fraught talks, too much is on the line and the situation is too combustible.

In an interview on Wednesday, US President Donald Trump accused Iran of delay tactics, and said he was “much less confident of a deal being made”. That evening, based on unspecified threats, Mr Trump’s administration raised alarm with a sudden decision to evacuate non-essential personnel from American embassies and military installations in Iraq, with preparations under way to evacuate more in Kuwait and Bahrain.

Rumours have circulated in US media that the proximate cause is intelligence about Israeli readiness to launch an operation into Iran. Mr Trump raised eyebrows further when he responded to a reporter’s question about the evacuation by saying: “They are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place … [Iran] can’t have a nuclear weapon.”

Iran’s Defence Minister, Gen Aziz Nasirzadeh, warned in response that “if a conflict is imposed on [Iran] … all US bases are within reach and we will boldly target them in host countries”.

The impasse over the recommencement of the nuclear talks appeared to have been resolved, when the Foreign Minister of Oman – where the talks are set to take place – announced on Thursday that the sixth round would begin on June 15. However, later on Thursday, the UN nuclear watchdog’s 35-nation Board of Governors passed a resolution formally declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in almost 20 years.

Tehran, which insists it has always adhered to its safeguard obligations, called the decision “completely political and biased”. It added that it was left with “no other choice but to respond” to the resolution, and that it will set up a new enrichment facility.

Regardless of the resolution’s impact on the talks, it is almost certain that the acute climate of fear created by the possibility of strikes – be they Israeli or Iranian – and the ensuing volley of threats will adversely affect the region.

The reward in a deal is that it could be the first step towards a broader arrangement that sees Iran curb its excesses

The Middle East has seen some significant progress away from conflict in recent months, particularly in Syria and Lebanon, but the ongoing wars in Gaza and Yemen leave its people in perpetual fear of how quickly things can escalate. It was only eight months ago that Israel and Iran exchanged direct strikes on each other’s territory – an unprecedented escalation between them.

Amid the fog of continued warfare in the region, talks on Iran’s nuclear programme have taken place largely out of sight, in hotel conference rooms in quiet European and Gulf capitals. The disagreements and delays that have made them so frustrating for their participants often concern the smallest details. But it would be a mistake to think that the stakes are not extraordinarily high.

The cost of diplomatic failure is a continuation – or even worsening – of the instability and insecurity that have rocked large swathes of the region for decades already. But the reward in this deal, if it eventually comes together, is that it could be the first step towards a broader arrangement that sees Iran curb its excesses and take its place as a promoter of stability rather than violence – to the relief, no doubt, of its 90 million citizens, the rest of the region and, indeed, the world.