As American and Iranian negotiators travel to Islamabad for this weekend’s peace talks, observers are hoping to avoid feelings of déjà vu. Washington and Tehran have frequently been in fraught discussions of one kind or another since the Iran hostage crisis of 1979, the year the Islamic Republic was founded.
This time, however, talks between the two sides are taking place amid very different circumstances. Thousands of Iranians and dozens of citizens and residents across the Gulf countries have been killed or injured in a weeks-long hot war. Iran targeted all six members of the Gulf Co-operation Council for the first time. The world is facing a profound energy and economic crisis. Traditional alliances, such as that involving the US and other Nato members, are fraying.
What is different too, is what’s on the table. Although there is much obfuscation about the talks’ agenda, it is clear that Iran’s nuclear ambitions and resulting international sanctions are not the only topics up for discussion. Tehran’s ballistic missile programme, its destabilising support for proxies across the Arab world, its hijacking of the Strait of Hormuz and its desire to dominate its neighbours all need to be addressed conclusively.
These different circumstances demand a different outcome from previous negotiations. Those were aimed at preventing escalation. Now, too much has changed and there is too much at stake. Given the fragility of the two-week ceasefire, there is no time for Iranian procrastination. Similarly, the US must be clear about what it actually wants from Tehran - based not only on American interests but regional and global realities. The latter requirement is vital – the comprehensive nature of these talks means there is the possibility, albeit faint, of a panoramic political settlement not a piecemeal agreement about one or two aspects of Iranian policy.
The fact that Pakistan is hosting these negotiations is another important change. Instead of a western-led mediation process, we are seeing a country with strong ties to the Gulf states and a keen awareness of their security requirements take ownership of this process. Absent from the table, however, will be one of this conflict’s main participants: Israel.
Wednesday’s indiscriminate and reckless bombing of Beirut, and Israel’s continuing violent occupation of Lebanese territory, have threatened to undermine the Islamabad talks before they even get going. Nevertheless, Israel’s aggression should not be used as justification for renewed regional war.
Although the Gulf counties will not be at the talks table, they have much to lose, not only if the discussions collapse but if Iran is left with the ability to lash out whenever it chooses. This is why the threats and ultimatums that have characterised this conflict should be put aside in favour of realism and pragmatism. The alternative is a return to the ruinous and unnecessary war that has already done so much damage to ruin lives across this region.
