US-Iran: last chance for negotiations?
Against the backdrop of a massive US military build-up, indirect talks between the US and Iran resumed in Geneva on Thursday. While the main topic was Iran's nuclear programme, the US is also seeking a deal on missile armament. There was no breakthrough but further talks are scheduled to take place in Vienna next week. The media examine the motives on both sides.
In a bind because of his own threats
The US president has manoeuvred himself into a corner, the Irish Independent explains:
“Mr Trump seems intent on war, but uncertain what he wants from it. Military action without a stated objective is rarely a recipe for success. Iran senses that Mr Trump is in a bind. For all Washington's military superiority, Tehran retains asymmetric deterrence - it can impose costs that may well be greater than the Trump administration is willing to bear. Iran will escalate rather than defuse, knowing that ballistic missile strikes on US bases across the Middle East would risk drawing Mr Trump into the kind of forever war he once condemned, thereby alienating a crucial part of his base.”
Tehran has aces up its sleeve
Iran knows how to defend itself, Corriere della Sera observes:
“Aware of Trump's dealmaker tactics, Iran is offering access to oil and rare earths and inviting American companies to invest in order to gradually rebuild a climate of trust. This path is impracticable even for Trump, as it would require him to lift sanctions, which is currently unthinkable. The president, who has amassed the largest air and naval force to be deployed in the region since the attack on Iraq 23 years ago, continues to weigh up his options: on the one hand he would like to go down in history as the president who overthrew the Ayatollah regime, something none of his predecessors were able to achieve. On the other hand his generals are warning him that this time there would be many casualties among soldiers at US bases, against which Iran would launch hundreds of missiles.”
Iran needs its bogeymen
The Iranian leadership is having to exploit the conflict with the US to the full for domestic reasons, Daily Sabah comments:
“Iran needs an effective external threat to consolidate the regime and ensure national unity. Until very recently, the enmity toward both the US and Israel, great and little Satan respectively, had been providing necessary reasoning for the regime. Political instability in Iran forces the regime to use foreign policy issues for domestic consumption.”
There was a diplomatic solution before
Salzburger Nachrichten is sceptical that the US military build-up in the region will persuade Tehran to back down:
“The political calculation is clear: to force Iran to abandon not only its nuclear programme, but also its missile programme. However, being left without either could appear even more dangerous to the mullahs than the current threat. ... Iran's regime doesn't want to give anything up. Neither its nuclear programme, nor its missiles, nor its power. A 'diplomatic solution to the problem', as Trump himself has said he prefers, was already underway internationally: with the nuclear deal that the US president terminated during his first term in office. ... It's hard to imagine a better outcome - with or without military action.”
Unpredictability presented as a strength
The US president is under real time pressure, political scientist Linas Kojala points out on Delfi:
“Trump generally prefers short, clearly defined military strikes that don't pose a significant threat to US forces and reduce the risk of a protracted war. After all, he returned to the presidency as a leader who ends wars - not one who starts them. ... The US president will, of course, be able to present any outcome as a success. He deliberately presents the unpredictability of his actions as a strength. This would allow him to justify both military action and a withdrawal. ... But time is pressing: the massive military forces assembled around Iran will not be able to remain stationed there permanently.”
Massive escalation still possible
The situation could spiral out of control, news website Liberal warns:
“The unprecedented concentration of US firepower in the region puts President Trump in a dilemma, as he must either reach and enforce a satisfactory agreement or withdraw with a hard but limited and rather symbolic strike. Alternatively, Washington must engage in a conflict with an unpredictable outcome. And of course, there is the risk that a cornered Iran will view any attack, even a small one, as a prelude to an escalation by the Americans that is targeted at the regime itself. This, in turn, would force the mullahs' regime into an all-out war against the US presence in the region, maritime trade in the Strait of Hormuz and even the oil facilities of the Gulf states.”
People irrelevant for Trump once more
Washington's main priority is no longer to liberate the Iranian people from dictatorship but to assert its own interests, Le Soir laments:
“The US president has now lost any legitimacy he might have had for strikes carried out with the purpose of saving Iranians from death. He no longer even mentions protecting the population. This has disappeared from his agenda, assuming it was ever seriously on it in the first place. Not surprisingly, cynicism, lies, self-interest and bluster have regained the upper hand in the White House. The question is, what will they trigger this time? What will be their outlet? Once again, the world is the helpless hostage of Donald Trump's dangerous and completely unpredictable behaviour.”