Iran-US meeting ends on a positive note

Iran’s Foreign Minister Dr. Seyed Abbas Aragchi and the United States’ Presidential envoy Steve Witkoff met indirectly through Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi in Muscat on Saturday. The Oman-mediated talks have been described as positive even as they concluded. The two sides have agreed to meet again. It is not clear whether the second time round the two sides would meet face-to-face or continue to talk to each other through the Omani mediator.

The meeting is to be seen as a positive sign because the two sides have used the term themselves, and the fact that they have agreed to meet again. The hardened position that Iran and the United States had adopted made it a difficult proposition.

US President Donald Trump’s invitation to Iran for talks was couched in threatening language, which is not the best way of reaching out to each other. Iran had initially rejected the offer of talks because of the belligerent tone of the invitation. The Iranians have also made it clear that their nuclear programme was not intended to make weapons, and there would be no discussion on the issue.

Why then did the US agree to the talks? It seems that Washington feels the tensions in the Middle East, especially in relation to the Houthi rebels in Yemen and the Hezbollah in Lebanon cannot be solved without the help of Iran. The two Shia groups do pose a danger to peaceful resolution of the war in Gaza.

Basically, the US is representing the security interests of Israel. Hezbollah and the Houthis pose a challenge to the security of Israel, and the US wants to safeguard Tel Aviv. And it is also a well-known fact that Iran is supporting the Hamas in Gaza. It is Hamas that is engaged in the war with Israel.

The other unstated factor in the talks is Iran’s relations with Syria. Tehran had been supporting the Alawite regime of Bashar al-Assad. After his fall in December last, and takeover by Ahmed al-Sharaa, the leader of the anti-Assad jihadi group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which has been dissolved and its men merged with the Syrian army, Iran has kept aloof.

There have been indications that Iran would support pro-Assad forces if they were to make an attempt to return to power. But so far, the pro-Assad groups have failed after the initial attempt. The US is sure to seek Iranian neutrality in Syria. Of course, many of these issues would not be on the public agenda of the talks. The public agenda would contain Iran’s nuclear programme, and assurances from Iran that it would not enrich uranium to weapons grade. And the issue on the public agenda would be the easing of American sanctions against Iran, and the de-freezing of Iran funds in the West.

The Iranians’ willingness to talk to the US is based on Tehran’s need to continue with its nuclear programme without interference from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and to free its trade with the West. The sanctions have been hurting Iranian economy, and Iran would like to get rid of them as soon as they can.

The US compulsions to talk to Iran are pretty clear. The US does not want to get entangled in the Middle East on behalf of Israel. Washington wants to smoothen things for Israel. The American goal in the Middle East is to establish friendly links between Iran and Israel. This looks most unlikely at the moment. But that is the ultimate American goal.

To be able to achieve this, Washington will have to make generous concessions to Tehran. The challenge is whether Trump can convince the hawkish Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that making friends with Iran is Israel’s best option. But for that to happen, the Palestinian state has to emerge as a precondition.