President Trump is often referred to as the Deal-Maker-in-Chief – someone unusually adept at taking full advantage of an adversary’s weaknesses. And from most accounts, the sobriquet is a well-earned one.
So, we are at a loss as to how to account for the seeming lack of firmness in the U.S. positions in the negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, especially after the drubbing Israel recently gave to Iran’s military. Indeed, we continue to hear about continually revised American proposals and counter-proposals.
Depending on the week, we hear from our side that Iran will or will not be permitted to enrich uranium, and at this or that level. President Trump told the Times of Israel last Friday that Iran will not be allowed to enrich uranium, despite reports that Washington is proposing allowing Iran to do so, but at low levels and only for a short period of time.
But the Times of Israel also quotes President Trump as having told reporters that “[The Iranians] won’t be enriching. If they enrich, we’re going to have to do it the other way,” hinting at military action if negotiations don’t pan out.
Also according to the Times of Israel, since the Trump administration and the Islamic Republic began, the U.S. has not been entirely consistent on whether to allow Iran to enrich uranium. Some statements indicated openness to a deal like the one the Obama administration made in 2015 that allowed low-level enrichment, and, for as long as the deal was in effect, placed it under international inspection.
In addition, we wonder if Iran be required to ship its existing uranium stock piles and nuclear plant infrastructure to countries outside its borders?
We also have heard different narratives on the economic sanctions issue. Will the U.S. agree to Iran’s demand for guarantees that the U.S. will drop sanctions as a condition for a nuclear deal?
Will Iran be restricted in their development of an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, given its centrality to a nuclear weapons delivery system?
Also, is a loophole-free inspection regime a red line for the U.S.?
There are many more such dangling items that are part of the constant interchange of proposals. Indeed, just the other day, the U.S. proposed new terms in the talks with Iran.
All of this suggests that the U.S. is treating the Iranians as equal partners in the negotiations. Otherwise, how could Iran’s Supreme Leader have just last week called the latest U.S. proposal “nonsense?”
We wonder whether the threat of military action against Iran at a time of its extraordinary vulnerability (thank you, Israel) is still the backdrop to the negotiations? As we have noted, President Trump has at least intimated that it is.
At all events, indefiniteness on the part of the U.S. sends the message to the Iranians that all they need to do is hang tough, and the Americans will come around to their way of thinking. The steady stream of American proposals and counterproposals and talk of Iranian “demands” indicates that they may well be on to something.
