Among the various points that Washington highlights as important for the end of hostilities in the Middle East, one of the most sensitive for the West emerges.
“A diplomatic fantasy”. This is how international relations expert Tiago André Lopes describes what the United States presented to Iran with the aim of ending a conflict that has lasted almost three weeks. Between demands and counterparts, the document proposes a profound reconfiguration of relations between the two countries, but it already raises doubts regarding its viability.
If on the one hand, Washington demands the dismantling of Iranian nuclear capabilities, the end of uranium enrichment on national territory and the delivery of existing material to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), on the other, it calls for the lifting of sanctions, support for the development of a civil nuclear program and the end of additional pressure mechanisms. Still, the path may be more difficult than the White House expects.
“Abdicating the nuclear program for military purposes is something that could be acceptable, because there is no evidence that such a program exists”, highlights Tiago André Lopes, an international relations specialist, recalling that Rafael Grossi, the director general of the IAEA, said on the second day of the war that “there was no evidence at all of the use of enriched uranium for military purposes”, although he also said that no country without nuclear weapons has uranium enriched to the level that Iran has.
However, the same expert interviewed by CNN Portugal identifies red lines that Iran will most likely not give up. “Iran will not accept the imposition of restrictions on its Navy – and it does not need to accept it from the point of view of International Law -, nor permanent limitations on its missile arsenal. It also does not seem viable to me to accept the total elimination of the use of nuclear technology. They will be red lines, for sure.” The university professor also warns about the internal context of Tehran, highlighting that “we currently have the hardest line of the regime at the head of the system”.
Major General Agostinho Costa also admits that some demands may be viable, namely those related to the commitment not to develop nuclear weapons. “This was, in part, a previous assumption,” he explains. Still, he warns of the hard core of the problem: “The central issue here is ballistic missiles. And there we are believing that the Iranians will not give in.”
Strait of Hormuz raises several questions
Among the various points that Washington highlights as important for the end of hostilities in the Middle East comes one of the most sensitive for the West: the future of the Strait of Hormuz, closed practically since the beginning of the conflict.
“I’m convinced that the Americans and Iranians will reach an agreement, especially because the Iranians will want to continue charging tolls. That’s why they talk about economic compensation”, highlights security and defense specialist Agostinho Costa. Still, he warns that there are demands that are difficult to reconcile, such as “the withdrawal of American forces from the Gulf”, which he also considers an obstacle for Washington.
Tiago André Lopes is more skeptical about the future of the Strait of Hormuz, describing Trump’s plan for the region as “absurd”. “Not only is this point non-negotiable, it doesn’t just involve Iran”, he argues, remembering that the place “is controlled by three States”.
“Any proposal for the Strait of Hormuz to be managed or supervised by an independent commission raises several questions. Right off the bat, what exactly does ‘independent’ mean? If it includes Americans, it is unlikely to be seen as such. Are they Arabs from the region? Why do the Jordanians suddenly have to put their hands in the Strait of Hormuz? That’s another question.”
Furthermore, adds the international relations expert, “it is not clear that countries like Oman or the United Arab Emirates are available to further complicate the current management model.” Even so, he argues, “it is accepted that an alternative solution could involve placing this responsibility within a regional organization, such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.”
Negotiating under pressure and without confidence
The context in which this plan arises also raises serious reservations. According to CNN International, it is planned to send several North American paratroopers to the Middle East, in a movement that, according to Agostinho Costa, has an obvious objective, although with a mainly symbolic impact. “This force that is sent is not that relevant. There are around three thousand paratroopers, it is a brigade. And then, marines, there are two forces. It is a force that is not significant considering the size of Iran and its army, but it has an important effect in terms of deterrence. It works as an intimidating action.”
This military pressure can, paradoxically, make dialogue difficult, as Tiago André Lopes warns. “Iran shows no signs of wanting to negotiate,” he says, recalling that previous negotiation processes ended with North American attacks. “Twice, Iran ended up being bombed while trying to negotiate with the USA. On one occasion, the talks were reaching positive conclusions. What was the advantage of negotiating?”, he asks.
The lack of trust is, in fact, one of the main obstacles. “It is very difficult to restore trust”, admits Agostinho Costa, adding that “the person with the least reason to believe in the other side is Iran”, taking into account previous episodes in which negotiations took place in parallel with military actions.
Despite this, the channels are not completely closed. “The negotiation windows are always open”, says the major general, highlighting that, in a scenario of military and economic exhaustion for all sides, there may still be room for dialogue, even if far from traditional diplomatic channels.
The controversial plan
The document, in the last few hours, includes significant demands from Washington such as the dismantling of existing nuclear capabilities, a commitment not to develop nuclear weapons, or the end of enrichment of material on Iranian territory and delivery of already enriched material to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
In return, the proposal includes the lifting of sanctions, support for the development of a civil nuclear program and the end of additional pressure mechanisms.
Here are the 15 proposals in the North American plan:
Requirements:
- Iran must dismantle its current nuclear capabilities;
- Iran must commit to never pursuing the development of nuclear weapons;
- There will be no uranium enrichment on Iranian territory;
- Iran is expected to hand over its stockpile of around 450 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent to the International Atomic Energy Agency (AlEA)
- The nuclear facilities at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow must be dismantled;
- The IAEA, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, must be granted full access, transparency and oversight within Iran;
- Iran must abandon its “paradigm” of having regional allies by proxy [como o Hezbollah, o Hamas ou os Houthi];
- Iran must cease funding, directing and arming these regional proxies;
- The Strait of Hormuz must remain open and function as a free maritime corridor;
- Iran’s missile program should be limited in both range and quantity, with specific thresholds to be determined at a later stage;
Concessions:
- Any future use of missiles will be restricted to self-defense;
- Iran will receive the full lifting of sanctions imposed by the international community;
- The United States will help Iran develop its civilian nuclear program, including the production of electricity at the Bushehr nuclear power plant;
- The so-called “snapback” mechanism, which allows immediate reinstatement of sanctions if Iran fails to comply with the agreement, will be eliminated.
Hours after the plan was released, and after analyzing the American proposal, Iran reacted to the proposal, classifying as “excessive” the demands included in the 15-point plan presented by Donald Trump,
According to a source cited by Iranian state media, Tehran rejected any attempt at external imposition on the outcome of the conflict. “Iran will end the war at the time it deems appropriate and only if its own conditions are met,” he said, stressing that he will not allow the US president to dictate the timetable for the end of hostilities.
Among the conditions presented by Tehran to admit the end of the conflict are the demand for an immediate cessation of “aggressions and murders”, as well as the creation of concrete mechanisms that guarantee that the country will not again be the target of attacks. Iran also demands payment of compensation and reparations for the damage caused by the war.
Added to these demands is the defense of a broad end to hostilities, which includes all fronts and the various allied groups involved in the region. Finally, Tehran insists on international recognition of its authority over the Strait of Hormuz, accompanied by formal guarantees to that effect.
