Is the war between Iran and the US-Israel tandem over bar the shouting?
Even a week ago, the question might have sounded fanciful as President Donald Trump was still threatening to wipe Iran off the map.
Now, however, he is talking of “progress” towards a deal confirming what he and his aides including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and War Secretary Pete Hegseth present as the end of military engagement.
Several new developments may have contributed to this new optimistic vision.
The first is that Israel, the initial architect of the war, has been excluded from the process of shaping its end. That gives the US a free hand in seeking a deal because Trump, unlike Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu, was never seeking regime change in Tehran let alone the disintegration of Iran as a nation-state.
Trump wanted to flex America’s military muscles and show everyone what its gigantic war machine can do thousands of miles away from home.
More than 30 years ago, Michael Ledeen, then a prominent Republican political guru, suggested that “every 10 years or so, the US needs to pick some crappy little country and throw it against the wall to show the world we mean business.”
Trump did better than Ledeen advised by picking Iran, which is anything but a crappy little country and managed to inflict on it damage that could take generations to repair.
To be sure, Trump-bashers still try to depict him as loser while in private they know that defying the US isn’t like going on a picnic.
The second thing that contributed to what seems to be a change of mood is the realization that the blockade imposed on Iran may be more effective than bombing it especially when one runs out of serious targets.
The third thing that happened was the failure of the project to guide ships pinned down by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz into the Gulf of Oman under US military escort.
At the rate of two ships a day, clearing the pinned down vessels would take over 100 days and that would be too close to mid-term elections that appear dicey for Trump.
The fourth thing that may have contributed to what Hegseth calls “a pause” is the end of the 60-day limit after which the President needs Congressional approval to continue military action. Theoretically, the sine die ceasefire declared by Trump and accepted by Tehran could be sold as the end of initial hostilities.
According to sources in Washington, Tehran, Islamabad and Beijing, a “roadmap” may take shape along an Iranian 15-point proposal and an American 10-point counter proposal. Both represent maximalist gambits that neither side could accept as such.
As mentioned in an earlier column, China seems set to play mediator by offering a compromise formula during President Trump’s summit with President Xi Jinping in Beijing on May 14-15.
The formula was discussed by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in talks with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi in Beijing on Wednesday.
Earlier Araghchi had discussed the move with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow. On Wednesday, the official agency IRNA also reported that Araghchi had consulted his Saudi counterpart, Faisal bin Farhan Al-Saud.
As far as we know, the formula spelled out in a one-page memo suggests three sequences of negotiations in view of an eventual deal.
The first round would focus on ending the US naval blockade against Iran and the full re-opening of the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran also insists that all Israeli operations in Lebanon be halted as part of the first round. Tehran would guarantee that its proxies in Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen would take no action against US and allies’ assets and bases.
The second sequence would deal with the nuclear issue touted by Trump as top priority.
The US wants a written guarantee by Tehran never to enrich or stockpile military grade uranium. Tehran seems ready to offer a five-year pause in that would go beyond Trump’s presidential term.
That would enable Trump to say he achieved what seven US presidents failed to do.
Tehran would also be ready to transfer part of its high grade enriched uranium to Russia based on an accord made in 2015. The remaining part could be downgraded for use in the Amirabad reactor in Tehran and used for civilian purposes.
The third sequence of talks could deal with guarantees that Tehran demands against future attacks by US and allies. In exchange, Tehran may agree to limit the range of its missiles though it regards the 2015 accord to set that limit at 2,000 kilometers as no longer valid.
If sources are right, Tehran will also drop its current demand for payment of war reparations by the US in exchange for releasing Iranian frozen assets and allowing Iran access to global capital markets.
The final deal will be signed presumably in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad at the end of all three sequences of negotiations and the establishment of modalities of implementation.
The sine die ceasefire will remain in place until the end of the negotiating process and agreement on a definite termination of hostilities.
Will such a gambit work?
No one knows.
But what is certain is that almost everyone - including the five veto-holders in the UN Security Council, the regional powers, the BRICS nations and the European Union - would welcome an end to this war.
Yet, supposing that such a scheme does take shape and is implemented, who could guarantee that either Iran or a future US administration would abide by it?
The Chinese suggest a new resolution by the UN Security Council as guarantee. That would be the eighth resolution dealing with the so-called “Iran problem.” All seven previous ones were passed unanimously but their implementation wasn’t mandatory. Iran didn’t abide by them and US and EU reciprocated by dodging provisions favorable to Iran.
A new resolution could come under the so-called Chapter VII of the UN Charter that under its articles 41 and 42 envisages sanctions and military action in case of non-compliance.
If that happens, any cheating by the Islamic Republic could expose it to isolation and even use of force by all UN members.
Despite the latest outburst of optimism, previous episodes of this tragic soap opera laced with farcical undertones warrant a big dose of caution.
If, according to the Arab proverb, seeking knowledge would warrant travelling even to China, the same journey in pursuit of peace may not provide the desired result.
As always between the cup and the lip there is many a slip.
