After a hiatus of a few months, talks between Iran and the United States over the 2015 Iran nuclear deal resumed earlier this week. Created under the Obama administration, the nuclear deal, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and signed by many world powers, lifted sanctions against the Islamic Republic in exchange for limiting its nuclear programs. Tensions around the deal have risen sharply over the past three years, as former President Donald Trump unilaterally decided to withdraw from the deal and strongly reimpose the sanctions in 2018. The sanctions imposed were attributed to paralysis the Iranian economy. While the United States and Iran agree to return to the deal, many experts are not optimistic that the event will take place. Iran’s foreign minister said ahead of the meetings this week that there would be “no way of getting back” to the deal without the dissipation of all US sanctions against Iran. NBC analysts write that Iran’s cemented position “does not bode well for negotiations.” Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian further declared that “the return of the United States to the nuclear deal would make no sense without guarantees to prevent the repetition of the bitter experience of the past”.
According to CNBC, six rounds of previous indirect talks have taken place between the United States and Iran dating back to early this year. However, negotiations were quickly halted after the election of hardline chairman Ebrahim Raisi in August. Despite his support for the return of the accord, President Raisi has made it very clear that he distrusts the West. As previously reported, Iran has no plans to return to the deal until all US sanctions are lifted. In contrast, the Biden administration says it will only lift sanctions when Iran reverses its JCPOA violations.
Due to Iran’s rigid stance on the deal, there is “only a 10% chance of recovery this year and 20% next year,” says Henry Rome, research director global macro within the political risk company Eurasia Group. Failure to come to an agreement on this deal allows a very serious international nuclear threat to linger for an ambiguous length of time. In addition, US sanctions imposed on Iran will continue to hurt the country’s economy and, by extension, the Iranian people. In a situation like this, many may wonder why Iran remains so firm in its demands. As a global superpower, the United States is never the country that gives in to the demands of other countries, so why does President Raisi think this will change for him? This is a question for debate, but it is also very evident that with a new president Iran is much “more comfortable with nuclear escalation and contestation than before,” Behnam Ben Taleblu said. , principal researcher at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. However, President Raisi’s claim that the country’s economy can survive without sanctions relief appears to be far from the truth. “Even the expansion of economic ties with neighbors has a hard cap if the JCPOA collapses,” says expert Ali Vaez. The problem persists because the Biden administration has yet to put further pressure on Iran’s nuclear escalations.
In reality, Iran will not see its demands met the way they claim. Nonetheless, Raisi’s concerns about the West’s reliability remain very valid. In talks surrounding the deal, there has not yet been a response from the Biden administration regarding what would prevent a country like the United States from pulling out of the deal and re-imposing sanctions on the deal. Iran in the future. Given the repercussions Iran suffered from President Trump’s 2018 decision, Raisi is most likely seeking a guarantee that this event will not happen again.
Because of the United States ‘presence as a global superpower, the United States’ reasoning is often never questioned when it comes to its strong positions on international negotiations. Typically, opposing countries are often ridiculed for making demands or expecting a compromise from the United States. The narrative in this situation ranges from how a nation stands up against nefarious decisions made by the US government to how long it will take before a concession is expected. Framing the message in this direction goes a long way in favor of the United States and allows them to maintain their global power. Because of their influence, the United States and other world powers can intimidate smaller nations into agreeing to their demands. For fear of the declining global influence of the United States, US presidential administrations have rarely come to foreign negotiating tables with a hesitant hand. Even so, with the incredible influence of the United States government, would it be just as possible to make compromises that could support multiple countries at once? The strict positions taken by the United States in international negotiations significantly affect the lives of people abroad. That said, the US government should find ways to become more flexible in international negotiations to increase, or at least not worsen, the quality of life internationally. Every day that the United States continues to maintain an unwavering position in the negotiations, the peoples of the world continue to pay the price.