US-Iran stand-off: conflicting perspectives |
The impasse in the second round of peace talks stems from Iran exhibiting intransigence and the US considering these parleys as a waste of time, for Iran not conceding on the core demand of halting uranium enrichment. The US proposals envisage a concurrent two-stage process, including ending the war first; and simultaneously addressing more contentious issues, like Iran's nuclear programme. The Iranian proposition spans a sequenced framework; ending hostilities first, followed by CBMs like removing the maritime blockade, and thereafter the broader negotiations. Tehran wants removal of blockade as a precondition for further talks. Its approach comprises immediate de-escalation, while preserving the leverage (SoH) for the longer-term settlement. Contrarily, the US considers postponement of nuclear discussions a risk, which weakens its centrality. Washington also cites 'tremendous infighting and confusion' within Iranian leadership, where the IRGC/Pasdaran is considered to be calling the shots, and not the political leadership, after the killing of the country's civil and military leadership.
In a nutshell, Tehran seeks phased relief and recognition of its position, whereas Washington requires comprehensive guarantees upfront. Pakistan is trying hard to 'narrowing the differences' before a second formal meeting. However, there seems an agreement on keeping the ceasefire open-ended, allowing time to diplomats for addressing complex issues.
President Trump cancelled a planned Islamabad trip by envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, announcing that Iran could call, once ready. Iran has, for now, shunned face-off with the US and instead prefers dealing through intermediaries, due to trust........