Iran-US Negotiations Fail, No Change in Equation
Negotiations between Iran and the United States have ended without agreement, and the negotiating teams have left Islamabad. What transpired in Pakistan, from the Iranian perspective, was less about negotiation and more about “demanding”—demanding what is considered the natural right of a victorious nation in war.
The conditions neither on the battlefield nor in the economic domain compel Iran to require an agreement. The continuation of the war will lead to turbulence in global financial markets and an energy shortage, which sooner or later will force the American side to accept Iran’s demands.
Naturally, Iran is in no rush to secure its rights. On the battlefield, Iran holds the upper hand, and public support for the negotiating team’s demands remains strong. People continue to dominate the streets, believing that ongoing war is preferable to a bad outcome in negotiations. Therefore, it is more logical for Iran to persist in imposing its demands.
It is expected that the United States will not easily acquiesce to Iran’s demands. The US aims to obtain through negotiations what it has been unable to achieve on the battlefield. However, American involvement in controlling the Strait of Hormuz and restricting Iran’s uranium enrichment rights is unacceptable to Iran under current conditions.
Had the US not betrayed previous negotiations, it might have been able to impose its demands more easily; yet now that circumstances have changed, Iran’s demands have intensified, and the US ultimately must comply.
The US currently has the option to continue the current ceasefire without an agreement with Iran, thereby minimizing damage to itself and its allies. However, a resumption of conflict will not alter Iran’s position.
US and Israeli bases remain within Iran’s range, and the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed—conditions that do not serve American interests.
Seyed Ahmad Mousavi, Mubaligh
