Iran dominating talks on ending conflict

The US-Israeli war on Iran has been a major miscalculation. Iran has emerged the “victor” simply by surviving the onslaught and is dictating the terms of the ceasefire and dominating negotiations on ending the war. Although Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior officials were killed at the outset of the campaign, there was no regime change, a key objective of the US and Israel. Instead, there was a smooth transition to Khamenei’s wounded son, Mujtaba, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) which has assumed rule while he lays down policy.

Iran sustained heavy bombing of its navy, ports, and arsenal, but Tehran managed to retain enough missiles and drones to retaliate against Washington’s Gulf allies which had urged the US not to mount this war. While US President Donald Trump was dragged into this failed offensive by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, he has not been consulted in the negotiations for the ceasefire.

Although expected to go along with Trump’s dealmaking, Netanyahu has attempted to subvert the ceasefire by ordering attacks on Beirut and southern Lebanon from which Israel has refused to withdraw under the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This lays down the terms for the ceasefire which would launch negotiations to end the war. Israeli actions in southern Lebanon have, so far, forced the postponement of negotiations between the US and Iran which were meant to begin this weekend.

Under the MOU both sides have undertaken to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. This is the key demand for Tehran as this restrains the US but not Iran which does not have the capability of striking the mainland US but only its distant assets in the region. Targeting them is now forbidden.

Hormuz has been closed since Israel attacked southern Lebanon. If and when reopened, traffic through the strait could reach pre-war levels within 30 days depending on mine clearance and overcoming other technological difficulties. Iran and Oman - the strait’s coastal countries - have agreed not to exact tolls during this period although payments have been mooted of management costs which could amount to $2-3 million depending on the value of cargoes. The US is to end its naval blockade of Iranian ports and interference with Iranian shipping. Once a final deal is achieved, the US is to withdraw its troops from the area within 30 days.

The MOU binds the sides to reach a final deal within 60 days. This could prove to be difficult, but the period could be extended. It took the Obama administration three years to reach the 2015 agreement which Trump trashed in one moment in 2018. Since then, Iran’s nuclear facilities have advanced from “primitive” to their current controversial level due to the use of state-of-the-art centrifuges. Iran has a stockpile of 440 kilogrammes of uranium enriched to 60 per cent which could be purified to 90 per cent, enough to produce 10-12 nuclear devices. Iran has reiterated its longstanding vow not to pursue nuclear weapons. A deal on Iran’s nuclear programme has been postponed until a final agreement is reached. This is expected to be weaker than the deal reached by Obama. Critics are making certain Trump is already paying a price for cancelling it.

Iran has been given a lucrative incentive to agree to a final deal. The US and its partners are obliged to create a comprehensive $300 billion package for the “rehabilitation and economic development” of sanctioned and bombed Iran. The mechanism for implementing this plan as part of the final agreement is to be formulated within 60 days. The US has also agreed to remove all sanctions on Iran imposed by the United Nations Security Council, and the International Atomic Energy Agency. All this fuss is over nothing since Iran’s nuclear facilities have been bombed by the US and Israel which would strike any replacements built by Iran to restore its programme.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu intends to act as a spoiler to foil rapprochement between Iran and the US. He and other Israeli leaders insist that Iran is an existential threat to Israel which is the region’s major military power and has the largely unquestioned backing of the United States and qualified support of Europe. Israeli officials have argued the MOU does not bind them to cease attacks on Iran’s ally Hizbollah in Lebanon or withdraw Israeli troops from that country. Instead, Israeli forces have expanded their area of occupation to reach Nabatiyeh and stepped up strikes in the south, the Bekaa Valley and east Beirut. Even Netanyahu’s detractors agree with him and argue that Israel cannot risk its national security to accommodate Trump who, in Israel’s view, seeks rapprochement with Iran at Israel’s expense.

This is not a new Israeli policy but was adopted during John F. Kennedy’s brief presidency (1961-63) when he sought to cultivate relations with Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser and the Arab world as a whole. Since David Ben Gurion was Israel’s first prime minister (1948-63) Israel has always tried to insinuate itself between the US and existing or potential Arab allies. Since the 1979 overthrow of Iran’s pro-Israel monarchy, Iran has been added to their number.