International Observation | The United States abandons the "peace talks" plan, Iran: Please get your stance right

Source: Xinhua News Agency

Xinhua News Agency, Beijing, March 25 (Reporter Liu Piran, Lin Yan, Cheng Shuaipeng) The situation in the Middle East is changing rapidly. It was reported on the 24th that the Trump administration in the United States had handed over to Iran a “15-point plan” intended to end the conflict. From Iran’s perspective, the U.S. side’s “strategic failure,” “sky-high demands,” and “unclean motives” amount to the U.S. having long since “gone bankrupt in good faith.”

American and Israeli media disclosed details of the U.S. “15-point plan”: Iran would promise never to develop nuclear weapons, not to carry out uranium-enrichment activities within Iranian territory, to abandon support for regional “proxies,” to open the Strait of Hormuz as a “free sea,” and to limit the number and range of ballistic missiles, among other things. In exchange, all sanctions on Iran would be fully lifted, and the United States would help it develop civilian nuclear power projects, etc. The United States intends to pause hostilities with Iran for one month to discuss this plan.

In addition, the United States and a mediation group composed of Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey are discussing the possibility of holding high-level talks with Iran as early as the 26th, but so far, this proposal “is still awaiting Iran’s response.”

On the surface, the American plan appears “full of details.” But analysts believe that the U.S. side’s “demands” have not undergone any substantial changes compared with before the conflict. For Iran, which is currently being gradually dragged into a strategic predicament by the United States and Israel, these are harsh conditions that are difficult to accept. The biggest problem is that the United States has already “gone bankrupt in good faith” when it comes to diplomatic negotiations.

First, whether to fight or to make peace, Iran will not let itself be “played by the U.S. side.”

Although Iran has suffered some losses at the tactical level, it holds a certain degree of initiative at the strategic level. Karim Sajjadpour, a senior researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, pointed out that in this round of fighting, “if Iran doesn’t lose, it wins; if the U.S. doesn’t win, it loses.” For Iran, the U.S. side releasing signals of easing tensions is actually a passive compromise made under pressure, presenting a situation of a “blink first” stance by the U.S. side.

A spokesperson from Iran’s military told the U.S. on the 25th that the United States has fallen into “strategic failure,” adding: “Don’t call your failure an agreement.”

Nate Swanson, a former director for Iran affairs at the White House National Security Council, said that the core judgment of Iran’s leadership is that, compared with the United States and its regional allies, Iran is better able to bear long-term confrontation and attrition. In the “asymmetric warfare” against the U.S. and Israel, the direction of events is being led by Iran rather than the United States.

Second, the U.S. side’s “sky-high demands” are far from Iran’s demands.

In fact, the U.S. side’s latest negotiation points are still the same three major demands made before the war: Iran gives up its nuclear program, limits its missile capabilities, and weakens its influence in the region. An article by The Guardian analyzed that the U.S. “15-point plan” has almost reused the demands made to Iran in May last year. Its content lags seriously behind changes in the current situation, and the sincerity and feasibility of the U.S. plan are highly questionable.

Iran’s newly appointed top leader’s military adviser, Mohsen Rezaei, stated clearly on the 23rd that Iran will stop military actions only if it receives full war reparations, comprehensive sanctions relief, and international-law guarantees that the United States will not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs.

Eric Brewer, a former senior official at the White House National Security Council and an expert on nuclear issues, said that Iran has many reasons to reject the “15-point plan,” among which the most critical is that these provisions essentially impose “surrender-like conditions” on a country that has not been defeated. Wang Youyong, a professor at Shanghai International Studies University, believes that the U.S. plan clearly carries the color of “post-war reconstruction” and “defeat constraints,” making it difficult for Iran to accept.

Third, the Trump administration’s credibility is in tatters, and Iran worries that the U.S. has “unclean motives.”

In the eyes of the outside world—especially Iran—the Trump administration has long since lost credibility in diplomatic negotiations. Its statements are more aimed at calming the market, disrupting Iran’s domestic will to resist, and preparing for the subsequent escalation of the conflict.

On February 28, during the U.S.-Iran negotiation process, the United States carried out a military strike against Iran, allowing Iran to fully see through its “talking while fighting” strategy, and Iran’s trust in the United States fell to rock bottom.

Multiple media outlets reported on the 24th that Iran refused to accept U.S. President’s special envoy Wittekov and Trump’s son-in-law Kushner as the United States’ negotiating representatives, accusing them of “betraying trust.” Iranian officials have told countries that are trying to mediate between the U.S. and Iran that Iran has been deceived by the Trump administration too many times, and “we do not want to be fooled again.”

On the very day when the “15-point plan” was disclosed by the media, the U.S. announced that it would dispatch about 2,000 soldiers from the U.S. Army’s 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East, and the Marine Corps’ 31st Expeditionary Unit is also expected to arrive in the Middle East on the 27th. Military deployments and the negotiation proposals are being advanced in parallel, making Iran more inclined to believe that the United States wants to “talk behind a gun” and “promote talks with force.” Some analysts believe that the U.S.-claimed negotiations are in fact a measure to buy time, intended to wait until the military reinforcement deployments are in place.

Ding Long, a professor at the Middle East Research Institute of Shanghai International Studies University, said that the outlook for the U.S.-Iran and Israel-Iran war situation remains unclear. It cannot be ruled out that the U.S. is doing fake de-escalation while preparing for real combat, but the fact that countries such as Pakistan are willing to step forward to mediate is a positive sign. Ultimately, this conflict can only be truly brought to an end through diplomatic negotiations.

HUGE AMOUNTS OF INFORMATION, PRECISE INTERPRETATION—ALL ON SINA FINANCE APP