Alwaght- Years of successive, intensive, and turbulent negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 finally led to the signing of the 2015 nuclear deal under the Obama administration. Although the agreement denied Iran certain key nuclear rights, something which pleased the US and Western countries, Trump tore it up with a single stroke upon taking office in his first term in 2018. The other signatories also failed to fulfill their obligations toward Iran as outlined in the deal, leaving Iran stripped of all its rights and suffering heavy losses.
In the middle of the talks, Trump bombed Iran’s nuclear sites, with his move not condemned by the Western countries or even the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has a intrinsic duty to do so.
The US political history suggests that when this country directed a challenge to a political cycle and negotiations, it actually aimed to impose all of its demands on the opposite side, without making the smallest concessions. A few days after waging his war on Iran and failing to reach the stated goals, Trump has understood in what swamp he has sunken and rushed for a ceasefire. The ceasefire actually allowed him to better understand what happened to him and exit from this conflict is not easy and costless as he may think. The collapse of his rhetoric and threats, along with his loss of credibility among the American public, even his own supporters and some fellow Republicans, laid bare the full scale of the disaster. In the end, Trump did not come to the negotiating table by choice, but out of compulsion and necessity, and on Iran’s terms.
Trump, as described, is the US’s true face without makeup. Even at his most sincere and flexible, he is by no means trustworthy. This must be taken as an unshakable principle of negotiations. From there, another essential point follows: Trump, unlike both his own methods and those of his predecessors in the US establishment, must unlearn the habit of dictating and learn, instead, to listen to dictates. As the ongoing talks between Iran and the US unfold, this analysis assumes that Iran’s negotiating team will secure a deal by putting forward the strongest possible demands in line with the country’s rights and interests.
Here an essential question presents itself: How and with what leverage can Tehran realize its demands in the face of such a person and such a government?
To answer this key question, we need to bring into the discussion the issue of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s sovereignty over this key waterway is certain and beyond dispute; it needs no explanation or even reminder, since no party contests it. In this new situation, what the Islamic Republic of Iran is pursuing in this vital waterway is the establishment of order over this piece of territory under its sovereignty. Bringing systemization to the Strait of Hormuz, a task delayed by years of neglect that inflicted heavy losses on Iran, is the main factor protecting both the material and spiritual interests of Iran, as well as those of regional and extra-regional countries.
Had this systemization been implemented earlier, the aggression during the War of Ramadan against Iran might not have occurred. That is because proper, targeted systemization comes with deterrence through prior notice and warning. The relevant parties would fully understand it, show restraint, and not recklessly engage in dangerous provocations.
An experience-based review of the political negotiation process between the US and Iran, alongside other countries, marked by constant American deceit and broken promises, highlights the necessity of relying on a guarantor and a pillar of support. The value and function of this guarantor lie in being fully homegrown and powerful. In the grand arena between Iran and the US, and amid ongoing talks, Iran’s internal guarantor can only be the Strait of Hormuz. Therefore, the role of this effective factor, with its strategic function, must not be diminished by reducing it to just one of many negotiating points. As long as the Strait of Hormuz provides a guarantor to a possible deal, Tehran can be optimistic and leverage it each time the Americans misconduct. Otherwise, Iran should expect the bitter experience of the past, a mistake unacceptable from the foreign ministry. So, Tehran needs to establish the strait as a guarantor of the deal to steer the US into implementing the deal.
