Trump’s Iran Diplomacy at Stake? by Nilofar Suhrawardy

 Within hours of threatening the very existence of Iran, President Donald Trump began laying stress on US-Iran round talks scheduled for in Doha, Qatar (July 1). From one angle, there is nothing surprising about this as Trump has hardly been consistent about his stand towards Iran. It has vacillated between options considering peace and those preferring war for practically the whole of this year. Clearly, his decision to opt for war appears to rest on his own confidence and Israel’s favored option, which apparently presumes that Iran can be easily defeated. Trump would certainly like to believe that defeating Iran in a matter of few days is not impossible for him. Or at least, this is what he tends to assume frequently only to have it shattered by Iran’s refusal to yield to as and when desired by US. Instead, Iran has not restrained from asserting that it can withstand US strikes for a considerable stretch of time. Iran has displayed its strategies regarding Strait of Hormuz as well as that of targeting US bases in the Gulf in retaliation of the latter’s strikes against it. 

Iran’s refusal to succumb to Trump’s military options or in other words, its capability to counter the same appears to compel US into opting for diplomatic moves. Of course, this doesn’t imply that Trump is likely to always adopt this strategy, that too towards Iran and with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hardly willing to support the same. In recent past, with US having gone overboard in cornering Iran economically, diplomatically as well as regionally and in opting for war-strikes against it, the latter shouldn’t be expected to take any of its moves concerning it lightly. Neither should it be expected to go by only what Trump says or tries to dictate. Recent past is just a minor witness of this hard reality. Soon after Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was inked on June 17, just when it seemed US and Iran had actually chosen to practice ceasefire, strikes exchanged between the two sides conveyed a different story. It didn’t take long for critics to comment on fragility of their ceasefire. 

In fact, there is nothing surprising about Iran’s stand – displaying its unwillingness to instantly to yield to even Trump’s positive diplomatic moves. These may be suggestive of Iran deliberately trying to exercise diplomatic caution. Perhaps. Lack of stability in Trump’s diplomatic approach in recent past, only highlights the significance accorded by Iran to probably exercising extreme diplomatic caution towards US moves.  After all, Trump’s diplomatic attitude – particularly towards Iran - doesn’t seem to be guided by any commitment. This only suggests that there also prevail limited possibility of Iran allowing itself to trust US totally on any front. Doing so, maybe equivalent to Iran letting itself by trapped by some diplomatic designs of Washington and/or Tel Aviv. 

There is thus perhaps nothing astonishing about Iran choosing to be extremely cautious and not easily being guided by and/or accepting what US, that is Trump decides. Iran is least likely to even be inclined towards instantly accepting superpower’s dictates. This could also be a reason responsible for Iran choosing not to have direct talks with US. Their recent round of technical talks was held in Doha, via Qatari and Pakistani mediators. Doha talks focused on issues including Strait of Hormuz, release of $6b of Iran’s frozen assets and Israel’s attacks on Lebanon. 

Iran has asserted that till certain provisions of MoU are not implemented, it will not have talks with US on the final agreement. This apparently is also a signal that its participation in Doha talks should not be viewed as a sign of any change in its stand on certain issues. These apparently include Hormuz as well as Lebanon. Iran views, reportedly, Hormuz as its key instrument of power and is least likely to yield on this as US desires. 

It is possible, when US and Israel began the war against Iran, they didn’t assume that Tehran’s usage of its Hormuz-card would disturb global economy. US probably assumed that its key western allies would support it against Iran at all levels. Diplomatic isolation was probably not expected by Trump. This was also equivalent to superpower being cornered in the exercise of what it assumed to be its trump-card. And had this assumption not been shattered or at least weakened considerably, Trump would not have chosen to try diplomatic-cards. These began with a ceasefire and then took shape of temporary MoU, which is expected to transform into a permanent MoU. On this front too, Iran is choosing to be strategically cautious against possible cards likely to be exercised by US. This probably also explains as to why Iran is not remaining quiet regarding moves it may consider. Of these, it has spoken most frequently about its capability to withstand and counter war-strikes for a considerable period of time. Iran is also trying to display its command over Hormuz. 

Where does this place Trump’s Iran-diplomacy? This question wouldn’t have been raised if Trump had not displayed the tendency to consider war-strikes and diplomatic moves at the same time and/or within short time-gaps. His diplomatic moves would have borne little relevance if it wasn’t the question of considering United States’ standing as a superpower. The same superpower literally faced diplomatic isolation during its anti-Iran war phase. It cannot be ignored that Trump did earn some diplomatic praise when he signed US-Iran MoU. But diplomatic support has hardly been forthcoming when he has chosen to adopt a war-like strategy against Iran, which has been favored primarily by Israel. 

Inking of the MoU is, to a degree, indicator of both US and Iran favoring a diplomatic solution to their differences on issues listed in this agreement. If Trump had not chosen to give some importance to Iran-diplomacy, he may not have considered the MoU and subsequent US-Iran meetings with help of mediators from Qatar and Pakistan. But there is no guarantee as to for how long would Trump retain the same approach. Or there is no knowing as to when he may opt for war-strategy again. Lack of stability and consistency in his own approach has apparently placed his Iran-diplomacy at stake!