Amid the ongoing US-Iran talks in Oman, Tehran faces a choice
We don't yet have the full details of what was discussed between US special envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Oman on Saturday. Nonetheless, it is necessary to dive into the mindset of the leaders in Washington and Tehran over questions regarding the future of Tehran's nuclear weapons programme and its support for armed proxies in the Middle East. The outlines of the negotiations indicate that Iran's establishment is floundering as it attempts to buy time, save face and find ways to escape while moving forward. It is aware of US President Donald Trump's seriousness, both in his warnings and in his readiness to deliver a painful military strike to its nuclear facilities, which represent one of the foundational pillars of its doctrine. With its other pillar – represented by a network of armed militias – having been amputated by Israel in recent months, it understands that both pillars are now unstable and crumbling. Yet it hopes that its continued aggressive rhetoric against Israel might deter the Trump administration from acting decisively. Iran's leaders have been trying to promote, for domestic and regional consumption, this notion that the Trump administration is prepared to abandon its insistence that Tehran change its regional behaviour in exchange for concessions on its nuclear programme. But if they believe this to be true, they haven't understood Mr Trump's convictions on the issue. The American leader who dismantled the arrangements put in place by former president Barack Obama with Tehran – arrangements that deliberately excluded Iran's regional behaviour and its support for militias and proxies from the nuclear agreement – was not Mr Trump. It was Joe Biden. Let's recall that it was the Biden administration that enabled Israel to carry out its crushing operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon and against Hamas in Gaza. Mr Trump has reaped the benefits of what Mr Biden implemented, which also unwittingly led to the fall of the Iran-aligned Assad government in Syria. But the Trump administration is building on these breakthroughs by attempting to block Tehran from exploiting Iraq's resources to evade sanctions and contain the Iran-backed Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) in that country. It is also carrying out military operations in Yemen aimed at degrading the Tehran-backed Houthi rebels. So for anyone to claim or suggest that Mr Trump is prepared to adopt Mr Obama's approach by agreeing to overlook Iran's regional behaviour is to misunderstand how he and his team think. In other words, the point of no return for Iran's establishment has arrived. If it understands the value of what Washington is offering – lifting US-led sanctions, normalising US-Iran relations and ending Tehran's international isolation – then it must abandon the doctrine of militias. The time has come for these proxies to submit to the sovereignty of the states in which they operate, rather than continuing the model of creating a state-within-a-state loyal to Iran that undermines national sovereignty. This means Tehran must force the likes of Hezbollah and the Houthis to hand over their weapons to their respective states. Yet recent reports suggest this may not be the case. At least not yet. There have been contradictory leaks, some saying that Tehran is ready to abandon the Houthis and withdraw from Yemen, and others claiming it is doubling down on its support and positioning there. Likewise, Hezbollah has reportedly expressed its willingness to relinquish its weapons, yet there are reports that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is still present on the ground in Lebanon, with dozens of its operatives planning alongside Hezbollah to reuse the Port of Beirut for arms manufacturing. Meanwhile, what is being telegraphed in Iraq doesn't suggest that Tehran is in any way ready to allow the PMF to hand over its weapons to Baghdad. All of this reflects either cunning and manoeuvring on the Iranian leadership's part or confusion within its ranks. If it is the former, then the thinking in Tehran could be that engaging in nuclear talks will draw the Trump administration into a negotiation over what the latter views to be its top priority: the nuclear issue. This could buy Tehran the time it needs to avoid American or Israeli military strikes, to regroup its proxies, and to evade the consequences of having to relinquish both pillars of its doctrine. In any case, the talks in Oman involving Mr Witkoff and Mr Araghchi, in the presence of Omani Foreign Minister Badr Al Busaidi, ended with an agreement to continue discussions in the coming week. Ahead of the meeting, the Trump team had emphasised a strict timeline by categorically rejecting any open-ended timeframe and instead insisting on a one- or two-month period for Tehran to accept Washington's set of demands. These demands include Iran opening its nuclear facilities to the International Atomic Energy Agency and accepting broader inspections in pursuit of dismantling its nuclear weapons programme. Iran has made it clear that it has rejected this demand, although it has opened the door for discussing the idea of a temporary, phased agreement on the nuclear issue. Another demand is that Iran cease shipping weapons, missiles and ammunition to its proxies in the region, as well as halt its use of proxies to destabilise the region. Washington also insists that talks not be limited to the nuclear file but also include Tehran's ballistic missile programme. Finally, the package includes a demand that Tehran commit to Israel's security. Iran will use the coming week to process and review these demands as well as its options. 'I think we are very close to a basis for negotiations and if we can conclude this basis next week, we'll have gone a long way and will be able to start real discussions based on that,' Mr Araghchi said after the meeting. In the end, Iran's leadership must know that it can't keep the door of dialogue open indefinitely, for the era of 'strategic patience' has run its course. Ultimately, and sooner rather than later, it needs to decide whether to modify its doctrine in order to ensure regime survival – or cling to it, even if this might spell regime destruction.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
an hour ago
- Middle East Eye
France says dismantling of weapons sites is job of Lebanese military, not Israel
The French foreign ministry on Friday called on Israel "to fully withdraw from Lebanese territory as quickly as possible", following a spate of air strikes it conducted on southern Beirut one day earlier. It added that the "dismantling of unauthorized military sites on Lebanese soil remains a priority for the Lebanese Armed Forces", suggesting that it is not a job for Israel. The Israeli army had said it was targeting infrastructure used by Hezbollah. "France condemns the Israeli airstrikes that hit Beirut on June 5. France calls on all the parties to abide by the ceasefire signed on November 26, 2024, in order to ensure the safety of civilian populations on both sides of the Blue Line," the ministry's statement said. "France notes that the monitoring mechanism established by the ceasefire agreement is there to help the parties deal with threats and prevent any escalation that would undermine Lebanon and Israel's security and stability."
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
Iran warns European nations over move to censure it for nuclear 'non-compliance'
Iran 's Foreign Minister warned the UK, France and Germany on Friday against backing a resolution censuring Tehran at a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency next week, saying such a move would be a "strategic mistake". "Instead of engaging in good faith, the E3 is opting for malign action against Iran at the IAEA Board of Governors," Abbas Araghchi said in a post on X. "Mark my words as Europe ponders another major strategic mistake: Iran will react strongly against any violation of its rights." Mr Araghchi's warning comes as the three European nations prepare to join the United States in backing a draft resolution to censure Iran at next week's board meeting, a diplomatic source told AFP. The resolution would accuse Iran of failing to meet its obligations as a signatory of the Nuclear No-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and carries the threat of referral to the UN Security Council if Tehran "does not show goodwill", the source added. The move follows a quarterly report from the IAEA last week which cited a "general lack of co-operation" from Iran and raised concerns over undeclared nuclear material. The UN's nuclear watchdog also expressed 'serious concern' that Iran had stepped up its enrichment of uranium to near weapons-grade level in recent months. The report said Iran had an estimated 408.6 kilograms of uranium enriched up to 60 per cent as of May 17, up by 133.8kg since the last report in February. According to the IAEA, Iran is the only non-nuclear weapon state to enrich uranium to 60 per cent, which is close to the roughly 90 per cent level needed for atomic weapons. Iran has repeatedly denied that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Tehran rejected the report as politically motivated and based on "forged documents" that it said had been provided by its arch foe Israel. In his post on X, Mr Araghchi said that despite "years of good co-operation with the IAEA – resulting in a resolution which shut down malign claims of a 'possible military dimension' (PMD) to Iran's peaceful nuclear programme – my country is once again accused of 'non-compliance'." "Falsely accusing Iran of violating safeguards – based on shoddy and politicised reporting – is clearly designed to produce a crisis," he said. The pressure on Iran comes as it holds indirect talks with the US, mediated by Oman, to reach an agreement that would see Tehran accept curbs on its nuclear activity in return for the lifting of economic sanctions imposed by Washington. The two sides have held five rounds of talks since April 12 but are at odds over the issue of uranium enrichment, which produces fuel for nuclear reactors or, at higher levels of purity, material for nuclear warheads. Iran's leaders say that it has the right to enrich uranium under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and that the issue is "non-negotiable", while President Donald Trump insists that US will not allow enrichment to continue on Iranian soil. Tehran and Washington are seeking a new agreement to replace a 2015 deal with major powers which Mr Trump unilaterally abandoned during his first term in 2018. The agreement quickly unravelled as Mr Trump reimposed sweeping sanctions on Iran, leading Tehran to begin breaching commitments it made under the pact including a 3.67 per cent cap on the level of its uranium enrichment. Britain, France and Germany, which were all party to the 2015 deal, are now considering whether to trigger a "snapback" of UN sanctions under its dispute resolution mechanism – an option that expires on the deal's 10th anniversary in October.
Middle East Eye
4 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
US sanctions four ICC judges over Israel and Afghanistan investigations
The administration of US President Donald Trump on Thursday issued sanctions on four judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC) over investigations into the US and its ally Israel. The sanctions build on the designation of ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan in February, carried out under an executive order issued shortly after Trump assumed office. "This is an escalation in a series of attacks by the US government against this global judicial institution, which was created to end impunity for the worst crimes," said Meg Satterthwaite, the UN's special rapporteur on the independence of judges, speaking to Middle East Eye. "It is shocking to see a country that has for decades championed the rule of law using a tool usually reserved for corrupt or criminal actors against judges of this global judicial body." The sanctioned judges, all women, are: ICC Second Vice-President Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini Gansou (Benin), Solomy Balungi Bossa (Uganda), Luz del Carmen Ibanez Carranza (Peru) and Beti Hohler (Slovenia). New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Gansou and Hohler have been sanctioned in connection with their decision as pre-trial judges to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant in November over charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Gaza. The US and Israel are not state parties to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC in The Hague in 2002. Both states have opposed the court's investigation into the situation in Palestine, launched by the ICC's previous prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, in 2021. 'It is shocking to see a country that has for decades championed the rule of law using a tool usually reserved for corrupt or criminal actors against judges of this global judicial body' - Meg Satterthwaite, UN rapporteur The court's jurisdiction was based on the accession of the state of Palestine to the Rome Statute in 2015. Accordingly, the court can investigate Israeli individuals for crimes committed in occupied Palestine, which includes the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. However, Israel and the US have challenged the court's jurisdiction, saying they do not recognise Palestine as a state, and that Israel is best placed to investigate itself under the principle of complementarity as set out in Article 17 of the Rome Statute. Trump's order of 6 February reiterated this view and described the arrest warrants as an abuse of power, an allegation refuted by the ICC. The ICC is the only permanent international court tasked with the prosecution of individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. 'President Trump's sanctions on ICC judges aim to deter the ICC from seeking accountability amid grave crimes committed in Israel and Palestine and as Israeli atrocities mount in Gaza, including with US complicity,' Liz Evenson, international justice director at Human Rights Watch, told MEE. Under Netanyahu's government, Israel has faced accusations of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. The US is the largest supplier of arms to Israel and has backed its offensive in Gaza since October 2023, triggering accusations of aiding and abetting alleged crimes. Israel's war on Gaza has killed more than 54,000 Palestinians, forcibly displaced most of the 2.1 million population and made the enclave largely uninhabitable. Obstruction of justice Experts who spoke with MEE in the aftermath of Trump's order have suggested that the ICC should bring charges of obstruction of justice against the US president and any individuals behind the sanctions, based on Article 70 of the Rome Statute. The article prohibits offences against the administration of justice, including: "Impeding, intimidating or corruptly influencing an official of the Court for the purpose of forcing or persuading the official not to perform, or to perform improperly, his or her duties; and retaliating against an official of the Court on account of duties performed by that or another official." UN rapporteur urges EU to use legal powers to protect ICC from Trump sanctions Read More » The ICC has jurisdiction over Article 70 offences, irrespective of the nationality or location of the accused individuals. The Slovenian foreign ministry reacted to the sanctioning of Hohler, saying it will support her in carrying out her mandate. It also said it would propose the activation of the EU Blocking Statute. The statute primarily focuses on shielding EU operators, such as the Netherlands-based ICC, from certain US sanctions considered to have extraterritorial reach, like those against Cuba and Iran. Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prevot has also said his government would ask the EU to activate the statute. "While this would be the first time the blocking statute is applied in defense of the ICC, Belgium believes it is essential to protect the Court's independence and its crucial role in delivering justice for the gravest crimes," he said on Friday. The pre-trial chamber that issued the Netanyahu and Gallant decision included Gansou and Hohler, as well as French national Nicolas Guillou. It remains unclear why Guillou has been excluded from the sanctions. Legal scholar Kevin Jon Heller, who is Khan's war crimes advisor, argued that the US has sanctioned individuals who are perceived to be nationals of weaker states. 'The US seems to have sanctioned only the judges who come from smaller and less powerful states,' Heller said. The two other judges, Bossa and Ibanez Carranza, have been sanctioned for being part of the 2020 appeals chamber that authorised the ICC's investigation into crimes committed in Afghanistan since 2003. This included actions by the Taliban, Afghan National Security Forces, and US military and CIA personnel. Heller pointed out that Canadian judge Kimberly Prost was part of the same panel as the Ugandan judge Bossa and the Peruvian judge Ibanez Carranza, but she has been excluded from sanctions. 'The US seems to have sanctioned only the judges who come from smaller and less powerful states' - Kevin Jon Heller, legal advisor to Karim Khan 'That supports the 'weak state' explanation, because Judge Prost (Canada) was part of the same AC and is still an ICC judge,' he wrote on X. In response to the ICC's decision to investigate crimes in Afghanistan, the previous Trump administration imposed sanctions on ICC officials, including then-prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, and revoked her US visa. But since 2021, the ICC has shifted its strategy under current prosecutor Khan, deprioritising investigations into alleged crimes by US forces - a move widely denounced by human rights groups. Khan stated that the focus would instead be on crimes committed by the Taliban and the Islamic State - Khorasan Province, citing resource constraints and the need to concentrate on those most responsible for the gravest crimes. In January 2025, Khan applied for arrest warrants for two Taliban leaders for the crime against humanity of persecution on the grounds of gender. No applications for arrest warrants for US nationals have been made by the prosecutor. What is the impact of sanctions? The sanctions will have a wide-ranging financial impact on the affected judges, particularly on any property in the US and any transactions involving US citizens. 'As a result of today's sanctions-related actions, all property and interests in property of the sanctioned persons described above that are in the United States or in possession or control of U.S. persons are blocked and must be reported to the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC),' the State Department said. The three ICC judges who issued the historic Netanyahu arrest warrant Read More » 'Additionally, all individuals or entities that are owned, either directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons are also blocked.' The ICC denounced the sanctions, saying they aim at hindering its efforts to bring justice to victims of atrocities worldwide. 'These measures are a clear attempt to undermine the independence of an international judicial institution which operates under the mandate from 125 States Parties from all corners of the globe,' a statement by the ICC read, saying the sanctions will affect all situations being investigated by the court beyond Palestine. 'These sanctions are not only directed at designated individuals, they also target all those who support the Court, including nationals and corporate entities of States Parties.' Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp said the Netherlands 'disapproves' of the sanctions and stands behind the court and its officials. However, he has yet to announce specific measures to protect the sanctioned officials. MEE has reached out to the Dutch and Slovenian foreign ministries for comment.
