Zarif's Open Poker Game with Kerry

Among strategists, there is a belief that strategy is like a game of poker, and whoever is stronger in poker can present a stronger strategy. However, there is also a type of poker called open poker, where apparently the cards are played face up. The 1+5 negotiations regarding Iran's nuclear program have entered a critical phase, with the negotiating parties applying the last pressures on each other, and the gamble of negotiations has reached a point more comparable to open poker. In this way, the two main players (Iran and the United States) play their cards face down alongside five open and visible cards (similar to Texas Hold'em). In real negotiations, the role of these five open cards is played by Russia, China, France, the UK, and Germany. Almost no special move remains that the parties have not played. There are no moves left that are unpredictable, but the game is not over yet, and the outcome of this gamble remains uncertain. Europe, in the last round of negotiations in Geneva, had only a ceremonial role, and the initiative was taken from European diplomatic representatives. Even if they were present in the negotiations, they had no significant role, or it was said that they would be present, but later there was no news from them. Most negotiations took place between fresh Iranian figures like Hossein Fereydoun (brother of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani) and Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, and Ernest Moniz, the U.S. Secretary of Energy, along with their respective counterparts, Mohammad Javad Zarif and John Kerry, the foreign ministers of Iran and the U.S., as well as their deputies. Iranians usually employ all game theory tactics to perhaps gain a suitable advantage from the other side. One of these tactics is playing with open cards and strengthening the possibility that European interests in the nuclear issue, especially regarding the lifting of sanctions on Iran, diverge from U.S. interests, and for this reason, Europeans can be guided towards a direction contrary to the U.S. Americans, by reading the Iranian hands, constantly emphasize that Europe and the U.S. are united on the Iranian nuclear issue and that the U.S. has the absolute support of Europe. In recent negotiations, it was said that Nicolas Dourivier from France, Simon Gass from the UK, Hans Dieter Lucas from Germany, and Helga Schmid from the EU would join the negotiations. However, at least until the end of the negotiations, there was no news from them. During the last negotiations, every U.S. hint was carefully scrutinized and met with an equally strong reaction from Iran. For example, when Kerry indirectly stated that 'if Iran does not accept the existing proposals' and the U.S. does not feel assured that Iran does not want nuclear weapons, there is a possibility that Barack Obama will withdraw from the negotiations and ultimately that 'the U.S. will leave the negotiating table.' Hours after this warning from John Kerry, Ali Akbar Velayati (who has spent more than half of the Islamic Republic's life as Foreign Minister and later as a senior advisor to the Leader on international relations and head of the Research Center of the Expediency Discernment Council) responded more sharply in Tehran, stating that negotiation is not a concession that the Americans have given us; they need negotiations, and the Islamic Republic will not retreat from its rights on the nuclear issue, and in summary, whether to stay or leave the negotiations depends on the Americans. Some Iranian newspapers interpreted that Iran would also leave the negotiations in such a situation. Finally, with the end of the last day of negotiations without any sign of understanding, the bilateral negotiations between Iran and the U.S. concluded, and both sides returned to their countries. However, what has happened after these negotiations is more significant than what was known during them and will somewhat pave the way for the future of the talks and their possible outcomes. Israel and the U.S. - Israel, as an opponent of the negotiations and any potential outcome, continues to exert pressure in two ways. The pressure, which increases, shows greater capacity for damaging U.S.-Israel relations. It is unclear how Israeli leaders, who have important domestic elections ahead, will exploit this endless opposition in their domestic and global policies. The first method of Israel is to exert pressure to prevent reaching an agreement. Benjamin Netanyahu insists that if an agreement is signed with Iran that recognizes Iran's right to produce enriched uranium and a considerable number of Iranian centrifuges are engaged in processing enriched uranium, Iran will automatically acquire the capability to produce an atomic bomb in less than four months. Such a situation would undoubtedly not only break Israel's nuclear monopoly in the Middle East but could potentially endanger Israel's security. Of course, the occasional threats from the Revolutionary Guards regarding creating this doubt should not be overlooked, as even without nuclear weapons, their message is interpreted as if Iran is just waiting to produce such a weapon to annihilate Israel. On the other hand, such assessments from Israel are not unprecedented and have continued for the past twenty years. Israel's justification is that if these pressures and sanctions were not in place, Iran would have pursued nuclear weapons production. In contrast to this view, some speculate that the issue of Iran producing nuclear weapons is merely an excuse, and the most significant problem that Iran's entry into the international system creates is its economic impacts and regional role, and for this reason, it is necessary for this entry to be gradual and staged so that, firstly, neighboring countries do not think about an arms and technological race, especially in the nuclear dimension, and secondly, they can withstand the economic shock of Iran's entry. The second method that Israel is currently evaluating for its political gains and losses is Netanyahu's continued desire to appear before the U.S. Congress and speak in the chamber. Through this, Israel directly pressures the executive branch, foreign policy, and the U.S. President, and of course, throughout the content he has to present to Congress, no new points are seen. However, Netanyahu believes that as the Prime Minister of Israel, he must use every means to prevent the signing of an agreement between Iran and the U.S. In the past couple of days, various methods have been employed to counter Netanyahu's personal desire. Firstly, through revealing the gap between the Mossad's assessment of Iran's nuclear capabilities and the Prime Minister's personal assessment of the same issue. Documents that were suddenly promised to be published by Al Jazeera and the Guardian indicate that based on information from Israel's largest intelligence and counterintelligence agency, the Mossad, and the reports claimed by Benjamin Netanyahu regarding Iran, there is a deep disagreement. In other words, contrary to Netanyahu, his intelligence agency believes that Iran is not pursuing the necessary activities to produce nuclear weapons. This point is taken into account as Netanyahu has created a lot of noise for nothing. The invitation from John Boehner, the Speaker of the U.S. Congress, for Netanyahu to speak in Congress and Netanyahu's acceptance has become a subject of widespread disagreement, and it is still unclear whether this trip will take place. Meanwhile, Susan Rice, Obama's senior advisor on national security, also stated on one of the influential television networks that Netanyahu's decision to speak in Congress is a 'destructive' act and harms relations between the two countries. Her remarks are also considered a criticism of Congress for taking such an invitation. Shortly after Ms. Rice's statements, and indeed the next morning, John Kerry's remarks in Congress on February 25 left no doubt that the 'upcoming' agreement with Iran through a verification mechanism would block any action for Iran to produce nuclear bombs, and Israel's concerns are unfounded. Additionally, Mr. John Kerry, while defending negotiations with Iran, emphasized that criticism of the Iran agreement with 1+5 is entirely unfounded because there is still no agreement. On the other hand, there are widespread rumors in American circles that Iran has reached a ten-year agreement with 1+5. Many details of this hypothetical agreement are not disclosed, but the most important part is Iran's cessation of activities for ten years. Of course, the White House spokesperson almost immediately denied this rumor, but the significance of this rumor becomes clear one day after the conclusion of the negotiations in Geneva when we also consider the reflections of the negotiations in Iran. The reaction of the former British ambassador to Iran - following the disclosure of the discordant views of Israel's intelligence agency and Netanyahu, the Guardian quotes Richard Dalton, the former British ambassador to Iran, stating that for years Israeli leaders have played the role of 'the boy who cried wolf' regarding Iran's nuclear intentions, but now we have clear signs that negotiations are bearing fruit. Netanyahu must understand that bombs and permanent sanctions will not work against Iran. Reactions in Iran - After the return of the Iranian delegation from Geneva, various articles were published in domestic media, among which the following key points are noteworthy: The leadership, after predicting a week earlier that 'international sanctions against Iran will remain even if a nuclear agreement is reached,' has maintained a significant silence over the past week. In contrast, Mohammad Javad Zarif for the first time indicated that progress had been made in the negotiations. He even expressed unprecedented hope to domestic media regarding reaching an agreement on the generalities and details. President Hassan Rouhani and even the government spokesperson have each defended the negotiations in some way; the government spokesperson even mentioned that 'we are currently constrained by time to conclude the negotiations by April 1 of next year.' Mr. Rouhani, who recently called for a referendum on important national issues, stated in Tehran's printed media that 80% of the people support negotiations. The reaction of the principlists - alongside these positive signs, no specific reaction has been seen from the principlists in Parliament, and the Kayhan newspaper has not shown open opposition, merely headlining Rouhani's statement that 'we do not accept imposition, humiliation, and continued sanctions.' Kayhan, in another article, referred to the destruction of a model of an American aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf and related it to the negotiations: 'The might of America has been destroyed; it must engage.' In a third article, it mocked the alleged details from the Associated Press regarding an agreement with Iran that had previously been rejected by the U.S. The issue of the model aircraft carrier - that placing a vessel in the water during military exercises to test the skills of the forces in a maneuver is entirely normal, but that on one hand, a high-ranking delegation negotiates with American officials over a dollar and on the other hand, military personnel assemble a model of an American aircraft carrier and then aim to destroy it in a maneuver certainly requires prior planning and orders from above. This issue, above all, shows that the Islamic Republic of Iran's goal in negotiations is by no means to exit the nuclear issue, and there is no intention or decision to reform relations with the U.S. In any case, the Iranian delegation has returned to Tehran, and the American delegation to Washington to present important messages to higher officials and possibly receive new directives or return to the negotiating table with final decisions. It does not seem that either side has any interest in cutting off negotiations and starting a new conflict, although the framework of an agreement is still not visible. The next round of negotiations is ahead, and the coming days and weeks will show how close the negotiations are to their final step and whether this open poker game between John Kerry and Mohammad Javad Zarif will come to an end.