Iran war: can Washington and Tehran reach a deal?
The US government has reportedly delivered a 15-point plan to the Iranian regime to end the war. Iran has rejected the proposals, which called, among other things, for a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and is denying that negotiations are underway. However, US president Donald Trump has claimed to be talking with the right people. Commentators weigh up the chances and risks of the initiative.
US in a dilemma
Washington is in a difficult position, comments Diário de Notícias:
“Iran, aware of its asymmetric advantage, is demanding substantial compensation, guarantees that it will not be attacked, and permission to continue its 'civilian' nuclear programme. For Washington, accepting these conditions would be politically toxic and strategically risky. Rejecting them, however, could push the conflict to a point of no return. The problem for Washington is that, as long as the stalemate persists, Iran will continue to operate on the only playing field it truly masters: that of calculated unpredictability. And for now, it is this that is shaping the future of the region and the global economy.”
Dealmaker up against his limits
The door has slammed shut in Trump's face, according to La Stampa:
“We are all familiar with the Trump negotiation approach by now: a broad, ambitious programme that aims to freeze the conflict while dictating conditions that often have very little to do with the reality on the ground. And this time it could fail. For two reasons. Firstly, Tehran has learned that any glimmer of hope for negotiations can be dashed by an Israeli military initiative, often backed by Washington. Secondly, the context has changed, and the 15 points issued by the White House, a reworking of those presented for the negotiations at the end of May, do not seem to take account of the increased influence of the parties involved. ... And Tehran is slamming the door shut. ”
Trump could be preparing to withdraw
Club Z suspects this could turn out to be the beginning of the end of the conflict:
“The most likely scenario at present is that the attacks will come to an end by 14 April, the US and Iran will both declare victory, but in reality none of the issues that sparked the war will have been resolved, and in effect everything will quickly return to the status quo that existed before the attacks. That would come as no surprise. Over the past twelve months Trump has taken such steps on several occasions, launching what appears to be a major operation only to halt it midway, declare it over and withdraw without anything actually having been achieved.”
Fear of sabotage by Israel
Columnist Abdülkadir Selvi examines Israel's role in Hürriyet:
“Can the US and Iran reach an agreement? Yes, they can. But there is a very serious obstacle standing in the way of peace. And that is Israel. Whichever side I speak to, they begin by saying: 'But only if Israel doesn't sabotage it…' And they conclude with: 'We are hopeful. But only if Israel doesn't sabotage the process…' In the past, the US set limits for Israel. Now Israel is setting limits for the US. That must be Trump's 'Great America!' … America wants to reach a deal with Iran, but fears that Israel might sabotage it.”
Pseudo-negotiations a recipe for disaster
In a Facebook post picked up by Echo, journalist Yevgeny Feldman comments on reports suggesting that the US only went through the motions of negotiating in the run up to the war with Iran:
“When sensitive and complex negotiations are conducted in bad faith – not with the intention of reaching an agreement, but simply to distract and reassure the opponent into order to pave the way for a more effective first strike – this undermines future negotiations. And not only in the context of this war! It will become more difficult in the future to stop nuclear programmes of regimes of terror, to free political prisoners and to end wars. Nations around the world must constantly engage in negotiations. If this becomes impossible, it poses a threat to civilisation.”