US has been adopting a ‘wrong-headed’ Iran policy

Friday's talks between Iranian and US representatives have put on hold US strikes on Iran, eliminated potential mistakes which could precipitate war and heralded a return to diplomatic efforts to curb Tehran's nuclear programme. These were the first negotiations since June when Israel launched a 12-day war against Iran with the aim of disrupting talks and maintaining the regional and international isolation of Iran.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the talks were “intensive,” and conducted “in a very good atmosphere. It was a good start.”

However, this session took place against a threatening buildup of US naval power in the Arabian Sea and the Gulf, threats by US President Donald Trump, and fresh US sanctions on Iran's oil export fleet and countries, firms and individuals doing business with Iran. “If they (Iranians) don’t make a deal, the consequences are very steep,” US President Donald Trump stated.

In May 2018, Trump withdrew the US from the 2015 nuclear agreement which was working well and was considered the Obama administration's chief foreign policy achievement. Indeed, this is why resentful Trump voided the deal and reimposed 1,500 punitive sanctions as a first instalment.

Under the 2015 agreement, in exchange for sanctions relief Iran was permitted to enrich uranium for power plants to 3.67 per cent purity with low yield centrifuges and amass a stockpile of 300 kilogrammes.

After Trump pulled out, Iran honoured the deal for a year for other signatories — Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia — to ease sanctions but they refused due to US threats to impose on them secondary sanctions. After these countries failed to meet their commitments, Iran breached the deal by enriching uranium to 60 per cent (approaching 90 per cent for weapons grade), increasing its stockpile, and developing advanced centrifuges.

Due to Trump's withdrawal seven years ago, Iran has advanced its nuclear research and updated equipment and built large stocks of highly enriched uranium. This would not have happened if Trump had stuck with Obama's deal and relations between the US and Iran almost certainly would have improved.

Determined to avoid further violence, regional leaders have pressed Washington and Tehran to hold the first session of indirect talks mediated by Oman and to carry on with negotiations in coming days. Iranian officials have said these talks will cover only the nuclear programme while the US seeks to include human rights, Iran's ballistic missiles and regional partners — Yemen's Houthis, Lebanon's Hezbollah, and Iraq's pro-Iran militias. Eager to advance the diplomatic effort, the US has, reportedly, accepted that the current round of talks would cover only nuclear issues.

During talks last year Washington demanded "zero nuclear capability" which has been rejected by Tehran, but it is not clear whether the Trump administration has stuck to this position. According to a Western diplomat, Iran could agree to a "years-long pause on enrichment" while maintaining the right to enrich. It is not clear if the Trump administration would accept this compromise.

Iran is vulnerable to pressure as it has been seriously weakened in recent months. Iran's armed forces incurred major losses when attacked by Israel and the US in June and Iran's three main nuclear sites at Nantaz, Isfahan and Fordow were bombed.

On the domestic political front, the Iranian government faced mass economic protests turned political during January. Thousands were killed and wounded, deepening Iran’s international isolation.

If these talks resume, Iran would, reportedly, be asked by Egyptian, Qatari and Turkish mediators to commit to zero uranium enrichment for three years. Afterwards Iran would agree to limit enrichment to below 1.5 per cent which can be blended with other enriched uranium to reach 3.67 per cent. Its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, including 440 kilogrammes that has been enriched to 60 per cent, would be sent to a third country.

Iran would pledge it would not transfer weapons and technologies to regional, non-state partners.

Tehran would also agree to not initiate the use of ballistic missiles. Although the US insists that Iran limit the number and range of its ballistic missiles, Iran has so far been adamant about maintaining its missile arsenal to deter potential aggressors and respond to attack. Arguing that the US must insist on curbs on Iran’s missile manufacture and arsenal, Israel says these weapons pose a major threat to that country and others in the region.

While Al Jazeera reported a non-aggression pact between Iran and the US has also been mooted, it would not be credible unless regional wild card Israel was also committed. To prepare for threatened Iranian ballistic missile, drone, and cruise missile attacks, Israel has boosted its anti-missile systems.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has admitted that "regime change" is not possible for the present. The Revolutionary Guards Corps remains loyal and there is no alternative, united opposition organisation on the ground in Iran, commentators say.

US experts argue that Washington has adopted a wrong-headed policy toward Tehran since the 1979 overthrow of the Shah, a US and Israeli ally. The experts contend that isolating and sanctioning the Islamic regime has forced it to tighten its grip on power and adopt hostile stands. Instead of promoting regime change via ostracism and punitive sanctions which harm the population while strengthening the regime's grip on power, Washington and Tel Aviv should have at least partially normalised and traded with Tehran. This would have grown and empowered the moderate middle class and given it a larger say on policy, effecting acceptable behaviour and "regime change" from within.