Developments in Iran-U.S. Relations: Direct Negotiation or Path to Violence?

As the new round of U.S. sanctions against Iran is set to be announced and implemented on August 4 or earlier, the relentless verbal war between the leaders of Iran and the U.S. continues. A range of proposals and threats have been raised by both sides, which is unprecedented in the history of relations between the two countries. The following analysis examines various aspects of these verbal tensions. On Sunday, July 22, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo participated in a conference supporting the voice of Iranians and spoke in front of a group of Iranian-Americans. The Iranian expatriate community had been aware of and waiting for this event for a long time. A significant number of political activists and Iranian-Americans, many journalists, and especially Persian-language media were invited to attend this meeting. Pompeo's remarks had specific themes: he presented a picture of the diversity of the Iranian-American community and expressed hope that they would maintain their unity against the Iranian regime. Much of Pompeo's speech contained messages that the audience had heard repeatedly from various channels or social media. Terms like 'mafia government,' corruption at the highest levels of officials, and the wealth of the ruling elite and their affiliates contained no surprises, except that hearing them from the U.S. Secretary of State was unprecedented. Over the past month or two, similar lists had circulated on social media, and now the question is whether Pompeo's presentation of this information signifies an endorsement of its accuracy, or if it conveys the message that 'yes, we know this too and take it seriously'; or perhaps it means that soon we should expect to see these names on the sanctions list. What is Pompeo's goal? Part of Pompeo's remarks can be attributed to the Trump administration's desire to increase economic pressures and a roadmap to strengthen the 'pressure campaign'; coincidentally, a report on this had been published by Reuters just hours before his speech. However, when we look at the widespread reactions to this speech, even opposition groups and so-called 'overthrow' factions do not find a practical roadmap designed to achieve tangible results. At one point, Mike Pompeo noted that 'over the past forty years, the wealth of the people has been squandered on terrorism. For forty years, Iranians have been imprisoned for expressing their rights...' These statements generally provide an accurate description of the current situation, but the subsequent phrase in which Pompeo expresses hope that 'the next forty years will be of freedom, not repression' is more of a statement of hope and a postponement of desired changes to a distant future without a political action strategy. Following Pompeo's speech, a flood of mutual attacks and threats erupted between Iranian and American officials, and in a sense, a verbal war ensued. Hassan Rouhani threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, while Donald Trump reciprocated with a threat that if Iran continued its threats, it would face very unpleasant consequences. Trump's threat was implicitly interpreted by some observers as meaning the use of nuclear weapons. In fact, the repetition of Trump's words by John Bolton, the White House National Security Advisor, raised this broader interpretation. He quoted Trump as saying, 'If Iran takes negative action, they will pay a price that only a few countries have paid in the past.' After Bolton, Senator Lindsey Graham referred to the Iranian regime as 'religious Nazis' seeking a nuclear bomb, uncertain whether they would first target Riyadh or attack Jerusalem. Senator Graham considered the solution to be regime change by the Iranian people. Meanwhile, an Australian media outlet reported on the imminent U.S. action to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. This news was met with a response from the more moderate faction within the Trump administration, with General Jim Mattis, the Secretary of Defense, expressing ignorance about the source of the Australian media's report during a press conference (Friday, July 27) and stating, 'I am sure that it is not what is currently being considered, and to be blunt, it is a fabrication.' The implications of Rouhani's remarks remain unclear; whether he truly meant to threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz or intentionally wrapped his statement in ambiguity to imply: 'They do not understand the meaning of this statement, as it makes no sense for Iranian oil to be exported while oil from the region is allowed to be exported. If you can do that, go ahead and see the results.' Rouhani's statement—calculated or not—was well-received by many hardliners in Iran. Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force, other commanders of the Revolutionary Guard, and even the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic welcomed it, with Khamenei deeming it 'indicative of the policy and approach of the regime.' The message from Iran's Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, and the rhetorical flourishes on the statements of American officials; Rouhani's renewed warning that 'you should not play with the lion's tail (Iran)'; and that 'peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars' were repeated like a refrain by other Iranian officials and Revolutionary Guard commanders, further darkening the atmosphere between the two countries. 'The mother of all wars' recalled the fate of Saddam Hussein and 'the mother of all battles' during the Gulf War, and even some observers did not rule out the possibility of war between Iran and the U.S. After days of verbal artillery, the situation quickly turned against Iran. 'The mother of all wars' recalled the fate of Saddam Hussein and 'the mother of all battles' during the Gulf War, and even some observers did not rule out the possibility of war between Iran and the U.S. Concurrently, the internal vulnerable situation became severely critical, and the rial continued to lose its value against other currencies. Rouhani's government, which has faced an unprecedented economic crisis since the beginning of its second political term, witnessed the lowest record of the rial's value against the dollar; a record that reminded many opponents and social media users of the good old days when one U.S. dollar equaled 6 Iranian tomans. Analysis of the Current Situation As the announcement of the first phase of U.S. sanctions against Iran approaches, it seems that both sides have utilized all available propaganda tools to pressure each other. The Americans even went so far as to propose direct negotiations. Iranian officials, who previously claimed that Trump had 'contacted him seven times for negotiations' during the recent visit of the Iranian President to New York, were now faced with a public proposal. In the latest development in the relationship between the two countries, Donald Trump explicitly and 'without any preconditions' proposed a meeting with the Iranian President on the sidelines of the Italian Prime Minister's visit to Washington. Earlier, rumors such as the visit of the Omani Foreign Minister for mediation had circulated, alongside the curse-laden words of Ayatollah Khamenei, who stated that 'this man (the U.S. President) will also be buried in the dust and his body will become food for snakes and ants.' However, he did not mention what the fate of other leaders would be! Meanwhile, the idea of an Arab NATO and the formation of a military alliance between the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, and Qatar, along with Egypt and Jordan, has been raised and it is said that it may be realized by October (around the time when the second phase of sanctions against Iran begins). The National Interest magazine also claimed in an article that 'Israel may have up to 300 nuclear weapons, some of which are in the ocean.' This news could imply the possibility of using these weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities or any hypothetical enemy. 'It seems that Iran-U.S. relations are more complicated than ever.' Alongside these developments, criticism of Rouhani has gradually emerged, suggesting that Iranian officials should not engage in verbal disputes with the U.S. without considering 'diplomatic considerations.' Hossein Naghavi Hosseini, head of the National Security Committee of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, stated: 'A potential war between the two countries would turn into a widespread war and engulf the entire region and the world.' Even the conservative newspaper, Jomhouri Eslami, advised Rouhani to maintain moderation in his speech and not respond to American statements with harsh words. In an editorial on Saturday, August 6, the Jomhouri Eslami addressed Rouhani, stating: 'The coordinated rhetoric of Trump and Pompeo is a trap laid to draw you into it, and you should not fall into this trap.' However, even the writer, Mohajeri, used unprofessional and derogatory terms to describe American leaders, playing the role of a preacher who does not heed his own advice. More Complicated Than Ever It seems that Iran-U.S. relations are more complicated than ever: on one hand, we observe that U.S. officials are determined to increase pressures on Iran and limit this country. On the other hand, Donald Trump speaks of readiness for a real agreement with Iran before intensifying pressures. This duality can only be understood from a strategic perspective. According to the principle of escalation in strategy, when friction between two conflicting parties reaches the highest rung of the ladder, two scenarios are conceivable: either through negotiation and dialogue, the conflict must be resolved, or the deadlock must be ended through resorting to war. Donald Trump, Mike Pompeo, and John Bolton are trying to escalate this conflict while, as we have seen in the case of North Korea, they also keep the door open for negotiation. For this reason, Trump speaks of an agreement, and if Iran is willing to negotiate, he is also ready for an agreement, while rumors of war with Iran are also being discussed, although General Mattis considers it 'storytelling' and, in a sense, leaves the door open for an agreement. Trump's proposal for negotiations without preconditions indicates that the U.S. is weighing a range of options, while Ayatollah Khamenei's curses show that Iran has no practical plan for negotiation and is thus awaiting war. What features does Trump's desired agreement have? Trump's preferred formula is multilayered: in terms of nuclear activities, guaranteeing that Iran will not move toward bomb production for the long term is desirable for the U.S., but he will insist on its permanence. In the dimension of missile activities and regional actions, he may show flexibility as long as there is no threat to Israel. The trigger for this formula would be economic and diplomatic concessions, even to the establishment of full economic, political, and consular relations, which would, of course, proceed gradually. Is there any indication that shows Iran's readiness for an agreement with the U.S.? Currently, there is no such indication, although the proposal for negotiations without preconditions could be a useful test for Iran. For now, the ball is in Iran's court, but challenges will continue on both sides. Until reaching a point to start the phase of untying, the following positive and negative factors should not be overlooked: - Iran hopes that the International Court of Justice will give a positive ruling on a complaint filed under the 1955 Friendship Treaty within a month, and this ruling could preserve the nuclear agreement. - Iran also hopes that the existing rift between the U.S. and Europe will reduce the pressure of sanctions. In such a case, Iran will not be willing to negotiate with the U.S. The Iranian Foreign Minister (on August 7 among ambassadors) stated: 'I am not naive enough to say that we can create a conflict between the U.S. and Europe. There is a rift between them that we must take advantage of; we do not need to be the bridge of their rift.' - The start of further sanctions will worsen relations. - Regional developments and the possibility of military actions in Iran's neighborhood, Saudi Arabia, and Israel are probable. - Another important factor is internal pressures and the fear of the Islamic Republic of regime change and the loss of absolute power of religious governance; a notion that is supported among many Iranians, the opposition abroad, and many members of both the Democratic and Republican parties in the U.S. - Although the fear of regime change and external pressure alone cannot bring Iran to the negotiating table, mediation by Europe and Russia may be effective.