Divorce looking for an analyst!

Listen to the article. The audio text is automated, generated by an automated system

There is an irrevocable divorce between Iran and the United States, and every attempt to bring them together ends in a dispute over the conditions for sitting down before discussing the terms of the agreement. The recent New York meetings proved this unequivocally.

Iran wants to impose its conditions as if it were the victor in this conflict. While I respect the effort made by Doha and Islamabad, I see that the bet on reconciling the two sides collides with more than the skill of the mediators. Each party wants a concession from the other that it presents to its audience as a victory, and both of them fear that retreat would appear to be an admission that what they spent, and what they lost, did not lead them to the declared goal.

If we borrow the language of marital relations, this divorce requires a political “analyst,” a force that can open a way back from this destructive path, and that force has influence, guarantees, and a willingness to pay the cost of the settlement. Here lies the problem. The countries that can influence Tehran are not charities, and they have their accounts with Washington. I mean especially Russia and China. The question for them is: What do we gain by ending the dispute, and what do we lose if it remains? From this angle, it is possible to understand the distance between statements calling for peace and actual behavior, away from complimentary statements.

Russia is fighting a war in Ukraine that is not easy, and American weapons and American information played an important role in it. Therefore, it is not difficult to imagine Moscow being relieved to see Washington preoccupied with another front, on which it is spending money, ammunition, and the time of officials. Every defense system needed by American forces in the Middle East is limited to limited resources, no matter how extensive American capabilities are. Every disagreement between Washington and its allies over the war relieves some of the political pressure on Russia, or gives it an opportunity to bargain and maneuver.

This is why I believe that Moscow prefers a rivalry that exhausts the Americans without ending with the collapse of its Iranian partner. Press reports, citing Western officials, spoke of Russian intelligence assistance to Tehran, while Moscow denies providing such support.

This is information that should be attributed to its sources, but its potential significance is clear: prolonging Iran's ability to confront, and raising the price of American operations. The danger to us in the Gulf is that the information used to pursue American interests may turn into harm affecting neighboring Arab countries and civilian facilities that have nothing to do with the Russian account.

As for China, it looks at the scene from the other side. Its major competition with the United States lies in Asian economics, technology, and influence, and around Taiwan and the South China Sea. It is in its interest, according to this reading, for the American effort to be distributed far from its neighbourhood. Washington, preoccupied with Iran, is less devoted to monitoring and competing with Beijing, and more vulnerable to disagreements with its partners. China may get the benefit without firing a shot or sending a soldier to the region.

But China's account is not without an important limitation. It needs Gulf oil and its markets and stable trade routes. Therefore, I do not see that it wants an open fire that will cut off supplies and hit its economy. What might suit her is tolerable American preoccupation, not unlimited chaos. This difference explains how a major power can call for calm, and at the same time remain unwilling to exert sufficient pressure to achieve it. It wants to minimize damage to itself, not necessarily remove everything that burdens its competitor. Europe, despite its economic damage, is preoccupied with its problems and immersed in a sea of ​​economic and demographic crises.

Mediators move tirelessly...but the mediator can convey messages, soften expressions, and suggest the time and place of the meeting, but he cannot give the disputants a will that has not yet been formed. Doha and Islamabad are dealing with divergent demands, and with parties outside the negotiating room that affect his chances of success. Therefore, I fear that their efforts will continue to revolve around managing the crisis and postponing its explosion, while it is sometimes presented as a prelude to a reconciliation that is imminent.

The most available today may be a limited agreement that prevents the expansion of the war, preserves navigation, and opens the door to longer negotiations. This is a goal worth working on, provided that we do not confuse a ceasefire with ending the causes of the conflict at its roots. There is a problem in Tehran that cannot be solved by good intentions. Who has the power to say the final word, and to bind the institutions and forces associated with Iran outside its borders, is still ambiguous and hidden around a fog of contradictory statements. The agreement signed by a diplomat is objected to by the gun owner, adding a new disappointment.

In Washington, it is difficult to build confidence based on changing positions and raising the ceiling of demands in each round. The two sides have a history of suspicion that makes every guarantee questionable, and every step open to hostile interpretation. I do not believe that the harshness of the discourse alone reveals the truth of the situation. Both sides may raise their voices while secretly searching for a way out, or they may sit in front of the cameras as they prepare for a round of combat. The standard is to accept clear commitments that can be implemented and monitored. Otherwise, the mediator gives souvenir photos, gives the warring parties additional time, and leaves the people of the region watching the news bulletins and asking where the next strike will fall?

What concerns us in the Gulf is that the bill for this divorce reaches our homes before it reaches Moscow and Beijing. Navigation security, energy facilities, and people's lives should not become secondary items in the bargaining of adults.

It is better to build a Gulf position that supports calm, demands practical guarantees that prevent aggression, and takes into account the continuation of the rivalry. As for waiting for the “analyst” coming from Russia or China, I am afraid it will be a long wait. Some of those called for reconciliation find benefit in continuing the estrangement, and leave the neighbors to pay the bill. The divorce is theirs, and the bill is on us.