Iran, US Play ‘Ping Pong Diplomacy’ Over Nuclear Agreement
Three weeks after the European Union August 8 circulated a ‘final text’ for reviving the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, analysts are left interpreting hints and leaks.
Three weeks after the European Union August 8 circulated a ‘final text’ for reviving the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, analysts are left interpreting hints and leaks.
A European diplomat told Iran International Friday there was nothing to add to Josep Borrell’s hope expressed Wednesday of reviving Iran nuclear deal in “coming days.” Borrell, the EU foreign policy chief, had said after a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Prague that near-17 months of talks had led to “common ground” and the basis for “an agreement that takes into account…everyone’s concerns.”
Since then, however, US State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel said late Thursday that Iran’s latest input, made Thursday, was “not constructive.” Politico cited a “senior Biden administration official” saying: “Based on their answer, we appear to be moving backwards.”
The latest stage in the 17-month effort to revive the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), has essentially become a US-Iran, EU-mediate, indirect dialogue based on the EU text circulated August 8. Iran responded August 15, and then the US August 24. Iran’s latest input, sent as usual through EU mediators, was Friday described as “constructive” and “aimed at finalizing the negotiations” by Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanaani.
The Iranian website KhabarOnline has a piece based on a recent Clubhouse discussion in which Hasan Behestipour, political analyst at the Institute for Iran-Eurasia Studies (IRAS), called the current process “ping pong diplomacy.” While Behestipour acknowledged that in an ongoing diplomacy, “it is not possible to discuss the details,” he suggested that “media management” could be better.
‘People are waiting to know how long this takes’
“Whether we like it or not, these talks and negotiations have affected people’s lives [in Iran],” Behestipour said. “If America has given an answer, people are interested to know what the answer of America is generally about…People are waiting to know how long this process will take…I think that the evidence shows that both Iran and America need an agreement and both are trying to reach an agreement with maximum points.”
The weeks of ‘ping pong’ has given space for a wide airing of views, including from those wary of compromise. Mehdi Sa’adati, a hardliner parliamentary deputy who was a high-ranking IRGC commander for many years, quoted in the official news agency IRNA, argued Iranian negotiators needed to stand firm on verifying the lifting of US sanctions, ‘guarantees’ over Washington’s commitment to a renewed agreement, and clarity that any US sanctions against Iran’s Revolutionary Guards would not affect “other economic areas.”
Sa’adati also demanded the removal of the “safeguards issue,” an apparent reference to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) probe into mysterious uranium traces found in Iran and linked to pre-2003 work. This is line with public statements by Iranian officials, including President Ebrahim Raisi, that the IAEA enquiry should end before the JCPOA is revived.
But Sa’adati rejected the idea these issues might be dealt with “later,” insisting they had to be “clarified in these talks.” This put him at odds with a raft of recent reports suggesting the Iran-US talks were looking at a stage-by-stage return to the JCPOA, with the IAEA probe dealt with perhaps 120 days after the initial agreement to restore the JCPOA.
‘A much longer stick’
Sa’adati also criticized the IAEA director-general Rafael Mariano Grossi for his June visit to Israel, which holds nuclear weapons clandestinely and has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. Iran has charged that the IAEA probe into Iran’s pre-2003 activities was closed in 2015 and then revived only after Israeli allegations.
In Israel, Ram Ben-Barak, head of the parliament’s foreign affairs and defense committee, told the 102 FM radio station that “a much better deal” was needed with “a much longer stick.” Ben-Barak, former deputy director of the Mossad extraterritorial force, emphasized the importance of the IAEA probe to get “honest and real answers about what they did there,” but also referred to an option of military force to end Iran’s nuclear program.
“What Israel wants is something better in place of this deal,” he said. “Something better means telling the Iranians ‘Listen, you will not have a nuclear program’.”
Iranian analysts speaking to Iran International TV said that they believe the threat is aimed at making the United States even more eager than before to forge an agreement with Tehran.
Kowsari said in his remarks, as reported by Etemad Online, that Iran can boost uranium enrichment from the current 60 percent to the bomb-grade 93 percent. He added that it is the United States that needs Tehran and not vice versa.
Meanwhile, he denied that Iran's ailing economy badly needs the benefits of an agreement that would lift sanctions on its oil exports and international banking.
In another development, conservative website Nameh News wrote in a commentary on September 1, that although officials and media on both sides are hopeful, it is unlikely that an agreement can be concluded in the next few days. However, the commentary reminded that the delay would lead to losses for Iran, for which the opponents of agreement should be held accountable.
Nameh News said many in Iran believe that President Ebrahim Raisi's comments in a press conference earlier this week could be taken as an early "No" to an agreement.
Iran submitted its response late on September 1 and a US official’s first response was that Tehran’s reply was “not constructive”.
The commentary also reminded that Israeli's are working hard in the meantime to dissuade the United States from signing a deal to revive the 2015 nuclear deal, JCPOA. The commentary further claimed that France is also against a nuclear agreement with Iran and is trying to obstruct the deal. The website claimed that if an agreement is made, Iran will be able to export 2.5 million barrels of oil per day and earn $7.5 billions per month.
Rouydad24, another Iranian website claimed based on Israeli media reports that the new agreement is a weaker document than the original 2015 deal. The website argued that difference between the new and old agreements is not simply about a change in political situation, but it is also the fact that the new version is not as strong as ‘JCPOA-1’.
The website also wrote that the fast-changing international political situation has cast a shadow of doubt on the fate of the agreement, and it is difficult to make a prediction with a good degree of certainty. What is certain, wrote Rouydad24, is that currently more observers who believe the JCPOA can be revived only if a dead man can be returned to life. The website called the revival of the nuclear deal "a fantasy."
The website added that any agreement, if and when it is reached, will not be something like a JCPOA-2. It will certainly be a new deal.
Meanwhile, proreform news website Fararu wrote that given the existence of numerous differences and disputes between Iran and the United States, a stand-alone nuclear deal cannot be long-lasting.
“Even if this happens, as in 2015, it will only be an expression of tactical tolerance of the other side, and the foundations of such an agreement will be shaky. Chances of Iran and the US reaching a sustainable agreement will remain very low as long as the problems between them are not addressed in a fundamental manner,” Fararu said.