The increasing challenges in global politics are affecting the peace of societies. The rise of unpredictable leadership in the United States and the changing world order are undoubtedly creating new avenues for middle powers to enhance their role in the international system. The world is fragmented into three poles: major powers, middle powers, and developing states.

The unpredictable policies of the president of the United States offer ambiguous signals to foes and friends. Several countries are enhancing engagement with the US, while others are feeling left behind. The hammer diplomacy of President Trump, in which he warns countries to accept his plans or face consequences, demonstrates a shift toward a hardline diplomatic approach. The recent example is Iran. President Trump aggressively attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities and violated the sovereignty of the country. After years of tussles and a hard diplomatic approach, the US leadership started to engage Iran with the mediating role of Oman.

One can see that the recent engagement between Iran and the US came into the limelight after the US threatened Iran with attacks, and in retaliation, Iran adopted a hard approach and threatened attacks on US bases in the Gulf region.

After the failure of the JCPOA agreement, both countries again sat at the table to resolve their concerns. Iran, on the one hand, after facing domestic protests and crises due to the deteriorating economic situation, was forced to engage with the US to lower sanctions and gain concessions through which it could improve its economy. On the other hand, the US not only demands a curb on nuclear enrichment but also the curtailment of proxies in the region.

Both countries concluded the talks as a good start, but one cannot predict the final result of the negotiations between them.

We can see that the talks are primarily driven by fear rather than genuine concerns for peaceful reconciliation. Both countries want to avoid regional confrontation, which can destabilize the region and affect the global political and economic equilibrium.

Similarly, the withdrawal of the US from the JCPOA has decreased Iran’s trust in believing the commitments of the United States today. At the same time, the United States mistrusts that Iran would curtail its regional proxies even if an agreement takes place. Undoubtedly, regional countries are playing an important role in defusing tensions because stability in the region directly affects international trade and oil prices.

Thus, both countries are under pressure. Iran needs economic relief immediately to control public anger within the country. The US, on the other hand, after addressing what it considers a threat to Israel in the region, wants to eliminate the threat posed by Iran and its proxies to Israel, because Israel sees Iran’s nuclear ambitions as a threat to its survival. Washington also does not want another Middle Eastern war because the Trump administration is focusing on competing with China in global forums and revitalizing its economic outlook.

How would this wave of reconciliation end? Is there a chance of friendship between the US and Iran in a new phase, or is the recent shift only limited to the nuclear deal? What if we see prolonged negotiations without reaching a result? What if the deal collapses and both countries become involved in conflict and cause periodic regional crises?

However, while many possibilities exist regarding how the deal could end, the efforts made by regional countries, along with the US and Iran, to diffuse tensions and create solutions to the problem are significant.

Let us look at the first possibility: if this ends in a limited nuclear deal. Iran would receive sanctions relief, while issues such as the missile program and regional proxies might be postponed. This is likely to happen because Iran’s economy is under pressure and it needs economic relief to stabilize the situation. Gulf states need global market stability, and likewise, the US wants to avoid a Middle Eastern war. However, this possibility would not solve the rivalry but only freeze the crisis temporarily.

What happens if a deal does not take place but negotiations continue? This would not resolve the issue, but war could be avoided and diplomatic channels would remain open. This possibility would only reinforce a “no war, no peace” situation.

But what would happen if the talks collapse and Iran increases its nuclear enrichment while the US threatens Iran’s survival? This would exacerbate regional war, cause global economic shocks, and increase oil prices.

Hence, the possibility of talks collapsing is relatively low, and we can appreciate the role of Oman as a mediator in diffusing tensions in the region.

Similarly, both countries are negotiating out of fear, not for genuine reconciliation, which makes the deal weak and fragile. It seems that this is not peace diplomacy but crisis management.

The post The Politics Behind the US-Iran Talks in Oman first appeared on The Spine Times.

© The Spine Times