Can talks between the US and Iran produce a deal?
With just a day to go before direct negotiations between the US and Iran begin in Islamabad, both sides are accusing each other of failing to honour the ceasefire. Israel has stepped up its attacks in Lebanon, which Tehran says breaches the ceasefire agreement. And the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz – a key US demand vis-à-vis Iran – remains uncertain.
No agreement in sight
The Economist has little hope that the ceasefire will hold:
“The peace is desperately fragile. America and Iran cannot agree on whether it covers Lebanon being attacked so hard by Israel that the threat to the broader ceasefire seems intentional. They dispute how Iran should open the Strait of Hormuz, an American precondition for talks. And their negotiating positions are so far apart that they cannot agree even on what plan they are to discuss in Islamabad at the weekend. The best reason to think Mr Trump will not return to war is that he now grasps he should never have started it.”
The key lies in the Strait of Hormuz
Libération casts a worried eye at the negotiations in Islamabad and the critical issue of opening the Strait of Hormuz:
“For Tehran it is the trump card which could allow it to consolidate the ceasefire agreed at the start of the week. ... There also needs to be a solution to the question of Lebanon, where Israel intensified its bombing on Wednesday, in response to which the Islamic Republic signalled that it would not abandon Hezbollah. ... Hormuz is both the bottleneck of the conflict and the key that will unlock it: the repercussions of the blockade are so grave and impact so many parties that this is forcing Donald Trump to resort to something he really doesn't like: diplomacy.”
Europe is needed
It's time for Europe to get involved in the Persian Gulf, the Handelsblatt demands:
“A naval mission as part of Nato would be the best bet. This is not about submitting to Trump's will or massaging his ego; it's about defending Europe's own interests. Europe's economy will not be able to recover from the shock of the Iran war until shipping traffic returns to normal in the Strait of Hormuz. Whether the ceasefire holds remains to be seen. And no one knows if it will be possible to negotiate a stable peace agreement. But that does not mean the Europeans should continue to sit back and do nothing.”
Only losers
Avvenire finds it revealing that both the US and Iran are now portraying themselves as victors:
“For it is perfectly clear that in this conflict everyone, without exception, has been defeated. The Iranian regime is fooling itself into believing it has triumphed simply because it has not been completely overthrown: small consolation for a regime that is despised by the majority of the population, that has become even more violent and brutal following the assassination of many of its leaders, and that rules amid rubble and ruins. But President Trump, too, has been defeated. He seems to be out of touch with reality, lost in his inflated ego and faced with plunging domestic approval ratings.”
A bunch of criminals
Politiken makes no secret of its contempt for the leaders of the US, Israel and Iran:
“Now it's time to give peace and diplomacy a chance. The dynamics of war have brought the Middle East to the brink of collapse and threaten to plunge the whole world into crisis. But the conflicts in the region cannot be resolved by military means, as the past few weeks have shown yet again. The leaders of the US, Israel and Iran are all criminals. Trump has been convicted in the US, Netanyahu stands accused of war crimes, and the Iranian president has supported and promoted terrorism. Yet after the latest wave of destruction even they should realise that continuing the war will only lead to chaos.”
Each to his own
Political scientist Kirill Rogov points to the absence of common ground in a Facebook post:
“At present, it appears as though the three parties involved – the US, Iran and Israel – have each agreed on their own ceasefire, the terms and obligations of which are not fully known to the others and, moreover, differ from one another. In fact, it doesn't even exist on paper and it's little more than a rhetorical construct that explains the absence of the devastating strike that Trump had threatened to unleash on Iran.”
Best argument for building the bomb
Tehran is well-positioned for talks, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung observes:
“Trump's remaining followers will hardly pat him on the back if a war they never wanted flares up again after a two-week ceasefire. The mullahs, on the other hand, can now tell the Iranian people that their readiness to negotiate has prevented the destruction of their civilisation. Trump's apocalyptic threat has also given the regime the best argument to build an atomic bomb. It would be very surprising indeed if the mullahs chose to abandon their nuclear ambitions after this war.”
Loss of trust is irreversible for Gulf states
This war has destroyed many things that the Gulf states had taken for granted, says The Economist:
“What is clear, though, is that Gulf states have suffered some of the heaviest losses. The economic cost of the war has run into the tens of billions of dollars: lost oil-and-gas revenue, damage to vital infrastructure, even the bill for air-defence interceptors. The reputational damage may be greater still. ... Before the war the region had enjoyed decades of relative peace. It thought itself an entrepot immune from the Middle East's many conflicts. America would keep it safe, even as it pursued closer ties with Russia and China; for some, closer ties with Israel also offered the promise of a staunch ally against their foe in Tehran. The war has upended all of those assumptions at once.”
Why Pakistan is hosting talks
There are good reasons why it was Pakistan that managed to pull off this surprise breakthrough, the Salzburger Nachrichten explains:
“ With its population of 250 million, the nation maintains good relations with its Shiite Muslim neighbour Iran. ... As a nuclear power, Pakistan also signed a defence agreement with Saudi Arabia, Iran's biggest Sunni rival in the Middle East, in 2025. And furthermore, China has been operating the Pakistani deep-sea port of Gwadar since 2013 and regards the country as its main ally in the Middle East. So if Pakistan's prime minister is able to secure more than a short-lived ceasefire, he can bank on massive support in the region.”