at this stage, it appears that one side is more eager to reach an agreement
https://x.com/citrinowicz/status/2042687946654982512
Recent moves suggest a clear asymmetry going into U.S.–Iran talks:
The U.S. appears to be:
1. Backing away from its own
ultimatum
2. Pressuring Pakistan to broker a
ceasefire (and helping draft the
message)
3. Urging Israel to halt operations in
Lebanon
4. Largely overlooking the closure
of the Strait of Hormuz
5. Signaling willingness to release
frozen Iranian funds
6. Indicating that talks will be
based on Iran’s original 10-
points framework
7. Sending the vice president for the
discussions with a regime it tried
to topple
Iran, meanwhile, simply shows up to the talks, and even didn't "open" the Straits as agreed.
While the administration’s effort to pursue a diplomatic solution and halt the cycle of escalation is commendable, The real issue is that Tehran likely assume it is entering the talks from a position of strength.
Ultimately, the administration will have to make a choice: accept a deal on terms largely shaped by Iran framed as a “gracious compromise”, or stand firm on its principles at the risk of another round of escalation.
At this stage, the least probable scenario to envision is Iran backing down.
Since Iran has taken a significant blow with serious economic consequences that shouldn’t be underestimated, Any agreement will, almost by definition, strengthen the regime. At the same time, another round of conflict is unlikely to bring it down, and its costs will only continue to rise.
Still, at this stage, it appears that one side is more eager to reach an agreement. We will soon see whether, and how, that urgency translates into actual progress at the negotiating table.
These are not easy choices.
#IranWar
posted by Satish Sharma at
14:50
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home