Uneasy ceasefire: Mutual mistrust portends trouble for US-Iran talks

Details of the 10-point US-Iran negotiating text remain unclear, but hardline demands from both sides on reopening the Strait of Hormuz suggest common ground may be difficult

Two days into a widely welcomed ceasefire between the United States (US) and Iran, residual tensions can damage the prospect of a lasting peace even before US Vice-President J D Vance lands in Islamabad for talks starting this weekend. The immediate point of contention is Israel’s continued attacks on Lebanon to flush out the Iranian-affiliated Hezbollah. Tehran has described these attacks as a grave violation of the ceasefire; Israel claims Lebanon was outside the purview of the agreement, a point Mr Vance has endorsed. If this is the case, it is unhelpful in assuaging Tehran’s deep-seated mistrust. Instead, US President Donald Trump has doubled down on threats couched in the language of a Spaghetti Western. These are scarcely appropriate atmospherics for a truce, which the US and its allies need as much as Iran does.

 

There is no doubt that after 41 days of violence, destruction, and the disruption of global supply chains, during which neither the US nor Israel has achieved its ostensible war aims, dialogue is more than welcome. The fact that the US agreed to Iran’s request for Mr Vance to head the talks suggests a desire for an exit plan — though the Iranians can hardly consider the inclusion of Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, who headed the earlier failed negotiations, as reassuring. The details of the 10-point negotiating text, which the US has accepted as the basis for talks, are unclear but the maximalist positions reportedly adopted by both sides as conditions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz suggest that common ground could be elusive.

 

The US conditions stipulate Iran’s surrender of its highly enriched uranium and a commitment not to possess nuclear weapons; the reopening of the strait under US supervision; a dismantling of Iran-backed regional proxies; and a continued presence of US troops to monitor compliance. Tehran’s conditions, as reported in the media, appear to be mirror image of US demands, including a fundamental commitment of non-aggression from the US; controlled passage through the strait, lifting all sanctions, full compensation for war damage, and a ratification of these issues in a full United Nations (UN) Security Council resolution. The emphasis on approval from the UN is noteworthy. It suggests that Iran is keen to align itself to multilateral, rule-based institutions in contrast to the US’ flagrant violations of UN rules in its attacks on Iran.

 

A truly durable peace will depend on whether the US chooses to restrain nuclear-armed Israel’s violence against settled people in pursuit of a “Greater Israel”.  Indeed, if this war has underlined anything, it is a fundamental readjustment of the region’s security architecture, which is unlikely to benefit the US or Israel. Iran’s serial attacks on Israeli and US assets based in West Asian allies exposed holes in Washington’s security umbrella, undermining the value of the 2020 Abraham Accords. Regional leaders have understood that they can no longer rely, for their security, on the world’s sole superpower; they have been holding discussions among themselves on joint diplomatic efforts. Significantly, on April 8-9, the foreign ministers of Iran and Saudi Arabia reportedly spoke on the phone to discuss regional stability, marking the first official contact since the war began. Whatever the outcome of the talks, West Asia is headed for a significant shift.