Pro-deal voices grow louder in Tehran as diplomatic clock ticks down

Signs of unease are surfacing in Tehran as the two-month clock reportedly set by Washington to reach a nuclear deal runs down and European powers move to revive UN sanctions suspended under the 2015 agreement.

Iranian and US officials held their first round of indirect talks in Oman on April 12. That leaves just two weeks before President Donald Trump’s reported deadline expires.

Without a deal, the E3—France, Germany, and the United Kingdom—are expected to trigger the dispute resolution mechanism at the next board meeting of the UN nuclear watchdog in June. That would lead to the automatic return of UN sanctions on Iran by October.

“Delay in decision-making amounts to surrendering to a scenario of war and economic collapse,” wrote attorney Massad Saliti in Iran Diplomacy, an outlet close to the Foreign Ministry.

“If the Iranian government fails to find a diplomatic solution within this short window, pressure from the United States, Europe, and Israel could threaten the country's stability to an unprecedented degree,” he added.

Saliti outlined three challenges Iran could face beyond Washington’s maximum pressure campaign if talks fail: first, the E3 may “snap back” all UN sanctions; second, Israel may strike unilaterally; and third, domestic unrest could flare up, fueled by deepening economic isolation.

None of these scenarios appear imminent. Officials in Tehran and Washington have so far maintained cautious optimism that negotiations will bear fruit. But as Trump said Wednesday, everything could change with “one phone call.”

He put it more bluntly on Friday: “Iran does not want to be blown up. They would rather make a deal. And I think that could happen in the not-too-distant future.”

Europeans’ Role

Disagreements with Europe may also complicate Iran’s separate negotiations with the US, wrote foreign policy commentator Jalal Khoshchehreh in Khabar Online.

“Iran, the United States, and Europe remain firmly entrenched behind their respective red lines, making meaningful concessions difficult,” he argued, calling the situation “alarming for all parties involved.”

Still, one hopeful sign remains, Khoshchehreh wrote---that Washington and Tehran are actively looking for ways to keep talks alive. For once, he said, US officials sound more pragmatic than their E3 counterparts.

The E3’s hard line, he argued, may be both a reaction to and a reflection of their diminished influence. But their stance would matter little if Washington and Tehran reach a deal.

“It is Tehran and Washington that must sign any potential agreement. Therefore, despite the E3’s nay-saying in tandem with Tel Aviv, if the two main parties find a ‘balance point’ between their red lines, others will have no choice but to follow,” Khoshchehreh wrote.

Saliti went further.

“Iranian officials," he wrote, "should make the most of the remaining time to … urgently and transparently reach a comprehensive and lasting agreement—one that addresses all aspects of Iran’s nuclear program, missile activities, and regional engagements.”