Donald Trump extended the truce with Iran for the second time, this time until April 26. Iran, in turn, said that the American initiative “has no meaning” and refused to negotiate while the United States continues to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. However, the second round of negotiations in Islamabad may still take place – today it became known that Iran to make To Pakistan, where negotiations are taking place with the US Secretary of State. Meduza spoke with a former employee of the Russian Foreign Ministry about the peculiarities and paradoxes of these negotiations, as well as whether they have a chance of success. Boris Bondarev.
– How do you evaluate the negotiations between Iran and the United States? Did anything surprise you?
– I don’t clearly understand what it looks like. For example, were these negotiations one-on-one or were the Pakistani representatives sitting nearby? If there are direct negotiations between Iran and the United States, this is an additional advantage, because there are such contacts. On the other hand, the first round led to nothing, and the second was completely cancelled.
Both sides approached the negotiations too radically, with demands that were extremely exaggerated and inappropriate to the situation and balance of power. Now there is a third person going there, and Trump is making contradictory statements. Therefore, it is very difficult for Iranians to navigate and understand what they want from them. But this is not a smart policy on the American side to confuse the enemy. It’s just Trump, who has one thing in the morning and another in the evening. This is of course evidence of unprofessionalism.
We can say that Iran is compensating on the diplomatic track for its military weakness compared to American military strength. Militarily, the United States is head and shoulders above it, but despite this, Tehran is trying to outdo the Americans and neutralize this superiority. Iran feels freer in negotiations because the United States is represented by self-confident, but completely unprofessional and unprepared people like Steve Witkoff. The Iranian side, at the same time, is represented by experienced and professional negotiators who understand what they want.
At the height of hostilities, Trump declared that Iran “no longer has” any air or sea defense or leadership and threatened to “destroy an entire nation.” However, countries resumed direct contacts. How does this public discourse affect what happens behind closed doors?
– If the public discourse is not consistent with what is going on in the negotiations, its effect is bad. Imagine that you come to negotiations, discuss issues, and the other side says that they are ready to take into account your interests and are determined to work in a business direction. Suddenly their president says he has sent aircraft carriers and everyone will be destroyed and everyone will be bombed. Even if they tell you that this is a game for the public, you cannot be sure. Maybe the people sitting in front of you are just procrastinating for time.
If Vance is conciliatory and tries to play the good guy, and Trump is simultaneously threatening heavenly sanctions and making wild statements, how can the Iranians trust the other side?
If the negotiations revolve around sensitive issues such as a peace settlement or cessation of hostilities, one must be careful in public discourse. You have to say “negotiations are ongoing, they’re not going well, we’re trying to find common ground” or say nothing at all. Diplomats will talk and come back and tell everything. This is what responsible politicians do, but this does not apply to Trump. And he himself undermines his own peace initiatives.
– American conditions seem incompatible with what Iran is prepared to discuss. In such a situation, how can meaningful negotiations move forward? Is it possible to agree on something in light of these polar positions?
— If parties have strongly divided positions and there are issues on which they do not agree, they will usually try to find less important issues on which the process can be carried out. For example, Iran says its nuclear program is its sacred right. This means that during negotiations there is no need to press this matter from the beginning. First, agreeing on the system of passage through the Strait of Hormuz.
When the first progress is made, an atmosphere of constructive interaction will emerge, the two sides will begin to look at each other better, and they will see that everyone is ready for compromise and interested in dialogue. This is how trust is built. Then you can systematically move on to more serious issues.
For example, the multi-year negotiations that ended in 2015 with the adoption of joint comprehensive action are an example of complex multilateral action in such small steps. In the end, we were able to achieve tangible results. It is difficult to remember the loud statements surrounding this operation, because everything was done calmly and calmly. Obama did not say that he would leave nothing behind from Iran. The agreement may not have been perfect, but it worked until Trump withdrew.
Diplomacy, especially conflict resolution, is a difficult and often very tiring business, when you have to sit for a long time and sometimes listen to all kinds of nonsense. All of this can be stressful and does not promise quick results. Trump needs new bright reasons, so he rushed to Iran. Maybe he will forget about him soon and move to Cuba.
Presentation and diplomacy are two opposite things. They always negotiate in silence, without prying eyes and ears.
Trump has publicly announced Iran’s agreement several times: whether to negotiations or to give up nuclear weapons. Tehran directly denied this. Is this his conscious strategy?
“I haven’t believed for a long time that Trump has a strategy.” He just enjoys creating an hourly show. It seems to me that they may have brought him a telegram saying that Iran might, under certain circumstances, consider reaching a nuclear agreement. Such things are usually written in a veiled manner. Trump immediately responded: “Iran is ready to abandon its nuclear program.”
Trump is not prepared in diplomacy, politics, or international relations. He sees everything as a deal and tries to act like a businessman. In business, you can often promote something or put pressure on your partners. In relations between countries, this does not always work and is sometimes counterproductive.
Therefore, if Trump wants to make progress with Iran, he should first not speak publicly about this topic at all, and appoint specialists from the State Department who will quietly travel to Islamabad and negotiate. But this contradicts Trump’s approach.
-The Trump administration more than once Named Specific deadlines within which Iran must open the Strait of Hormuz. No deadline has yet been met. Does this make sense?
— If you set a deadline, it means that you are putting pressure on the other side, setting conditions that it must meet. We are no longer talking about equal dialogue, because the deadline poses a threat. If the other party does not meet you halfway, you must carry out this threat.
If your threats are not carried out, they will turn out to mean nothing. You just pretend to be so big and strong, but in reality you are afraid of getting worse. This means that the opponent has influence, and now he can exacerbate the situation through rhetoric and military means. This is what Putin is doing to Ukraine and the West. As soon as the West asks not to escalate the situation, Putin raises the stakes and talks about Oreshnik.
So here he is. Iran did not comply with the demands, which means that the American side has to back up its threats with something, but the United States, it seems, is not completely ready for that. Iran is a mostly agricultural country. Fields cannot be bombed. The country will not die of hunger. In this regard, you can pound it for a long time, but this will have little effect; There is a need to deploy troops here. The Americans are not ready for that.
One step forward, two steps back [со стороны США] – This is an indication that Trump does not have an understanding of what he wants from this war. Therefore, Iranians constantly wonder what exactly the Americans mean. Ultimately, this is a problem for the United States, which is losing its reputation, and a problem for Iran, which has to figure out what the United States wants. It is also a problem for the entire region, which does not understand what will happen next.
Several mediators participate in the negotiations: Oman, Qatar, Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan. Could their excess interfere with the process?
— As a rule, mediators calm the situation, especially if there have been no direct contacts between the parties for many years and they have strong disagreements. Countries that do not have direct diplomatic relations always hold their first meetings through mediators. Then you can make two-way communication.
Mediation occurs when a third party actively participates in the negotiations and prepares a draft of a final agreement that both parties attempt to accept. In this respect, only Pakistan now resembles the classical mediator.
He added: “Now the party that bombed is rejecting the truce, and the party that was bombing is extending it. How can this be explained from the point of view of the logic of negotiation?
– I repeat that on the diplomatic track, the Iranians appear stronger, and they have a more stable and tough position. They show a willingness to make sacrifices, take serious steps, and escalate. The United States is showing only chaotic signs: it either calls on Iran to open the strait and then closes it itself, or it announces that the parties have agreed to negotiate, but at the same time it continues the blockade.
A siege is generally an act of war. What kind of truce can we talk about if the siege continues? During the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the United States created Cuba, they called it a “quarantine” to portray it as a precaution rather than an act of war. Then they realized they needed to handle public discourse carefully.
Now the Americans say that they agreed to a truce, but to military action. Of course, Iran behaves accordingly. In their position, you have to show yourself as strong, decisive and undefeated as possible. If they surrender, everyone will think that there is an internal division in the country and an uprising will begin soon.
He was interviewed Nikita Kuchinsky