Speaking to the enemy: what to expect from US-Iran negotiations — UpFront

[0:00] with a fragile ceasefire in place between iran and the united states a diplomatic off-ramp to [0:06] the conflict seems possible but what does it take to make a deal this week on up front i'll ask two [0:12] former diplomats one iranian the other american about the stakes of negotiating with your [0:17] adversary iran and the u.s have agreed to talks in pakistan so could negotiations help bring a [0:30] lasting end to the war on iran joining me to discuss this are sayed hussein musavian former [0:36] negotiator and iranian ambassador to germany and former state department senior policymaker and a [0:42] key member of the 2015 iran nuclear deal negotiating team alan air gentlemen both of you welcome to up [0:49] front let me start with you and in the first days following the ceasefire both israeli prime minister [0:56] benjamin netanyahu and u.s president donald trump said lebanon was not on the deal but iran insists [1:05] that lebanon was part of the deal and that israel has actually violated the ceasefire offer by attacking [1:12] lebanon you both have been involved in top level negotiations i mean how unusual is this how can [1:19] there be such a fundamental discrepancy on such a core issue well it does seem to be the case [1:27] that there that lebanon and israel was included in the ceasefire when this administration u.s [1:34] administration was coordinating with pakistan about the release but then when israel objected [1:38] after it learned of it that we've rescinded our position but that plays into a larger issue when [1:44] you put your finger on it which is this administration doesn't really sweat the details it's very [1:49] improvisational last minute and when that's the case mistakes are made and i think that's what we're [1:55] seeing now and ambassador what's your take on this one on the key discrepancy here i think the criteria is [2:04] what the prime minister of pakistan as the mediator publicly announced in his statement lebanon was part [2:13] of the deal very clearly and it was uh the u.s later denied after israel attack nevertheless to my [2:22] understanding israelis always have tried everything to uh sabotage or to prevent a possible deal between [2:31] iran and the us and whenever a deal has achieved like the nuclear deal jcpa they have done everything [2:39] to destroy the deal which ultimately it happened that's why i'm not surprised okay so we are here [2:46] now but since the us and israel started this war on iran talks between iran and the us have happened [2:53] mainly through intermediaries so now there's a plan for direct engagement do you think that will help [2:58] uh i'm not sure it's going to be direct i think it's probably going to be mediated by pakistan but [3:03] if it is direct that's unexpected good news because what makes a negotiation successful is direct talks [3:12] and they have to go on for a long amount of time and the history of the trump administration's [3:16] negotiations with iran is they're intermittent every couple of weeks they only last for a couple of [3:22] hours and they're through intermediaries what you need to do is get the two sides in the same room [3:27] opposite sides of the table and just go at it to you know to negotiate for days at a time perhaps weeks [3:35] at a time it took us five years from start to finish to do the jcpoa three years were sort of [3:41] perfunctory and then two years sustained negotiations so this was not going to be solved in two weeks so [3:48] ambassador there is talk of jd vance leading the team made up of vetcoff uh the special envoy and [3:54] donald trump's uh son-in-law uh jared kushner that he's going to be there as well is this as direct [4:01] as it can get and will it be helpful first of all i really don't know whether the us is really sincere [4:11] serious for uh uh a face saving deal with iran or not and the reason i say we have three bad memory one [4:23] one is about uh the jcpa when iran and the u.s they agreed iran was in full compliance and the u.s [4:31] withdrew the second is about 2025 uh uh u.s israel war on iran and the third is about 2026 israeli u.s war [4:42] on iran where in 2025 and 2026 based on what the foreign minister of amman said diplomacy was working [4:53] very well deal was within the reach surprisingly the u.s attack therefore this time i really don't [4:59] know whether the u.s is after a deal or just to restore its uh weapon i mean ammunition uh weapon and [5:08] uh ammunition stockpile and to attack iran again assuming the u.s is is this time is really serious [5:17] for a deal i agree with alan what i have always said at least during past two three decades i have in [5:25] insisted if there is going to be a deal between iran and the u.s first of all it should be direct [5:33] negotiations second we need a comprehensive deal a comprehensive negotiations i mean we have had 40 [5:41] years experience of uh single deals between iran and the u.s all have uh collapsed have failed that's [5:51] why we need a very comprehensive direct negotiations but would you not say that this is a start at least [5:58] to seize hostilities to stop the bombs from going off once that stops then the conversation ambassador [6:05] about a comprehensive deal can happen i think if the both aside they have political will first of all [6:14] they need to agree on principles look why the jcpa agreed between iran and the u.s after 10 uh 12 years [6:24] of negotiations because at the first discussion between john carey and zarif september 2013 they [6:31] had just half an hour discussion in united nation building and they just discussed about the [6:37] principles that's why i think this time jd vance and galiboff if they are going to have a successful [6:44] deal they need to agree on four major principles first is about the nuclear and the second should be about [6:53] iran and the u.s a principle iranians americans they should agree that each other each side would [7:01] respect the original interest of the other side and they would end the original conflict and the third [7:08] principle should be that the u.s would mediate iran and the israel's iran and israelis they stop every [7:17] military security uh existential threat and the fourth which is extremely important is about the [7:26] relation between iran and gcc iran and u.s arab allies which they should change the course of last [7:33] 47 years of tensions uh through a regional comprehensive regional cooperation and security [7:41] system in the persian group ellen i want to bring you in here about the foundation of these negotiations [7:46] i'm just thinking here there's been a lot of controversy about who is in the room iran is [7:51] talking about a senior minister foreign minister being part of these conversations from the united [7:57] states side either will the right people be in the room if it is indeed jd vance and the son-in-law [8:03] and uh the friend who's a special envoy mr vetkov before i answer that i just want to one thing that [8:09] the ambassador said about whether we're serious about getting a deal i think president trump is for one [8:14] simple reason iran has a chokehold on the strait of hormones and with every day that continues to be [8:20] the case massive economic pain globally and that has serious domestic political consequences so [8:28] president trump wants this to end that's going to be very hard because iran has found a new method of [8:33] deterrence which is control over the strait in terms of your question to a large extent it doesn't matter [8:40] who's in the room you know you can play good cop bad cop jd vance nice guy whitkoff kushner bad people [8:48] iran is more sophisticated than that we're more sophisticated than that the positions are all [8:53] that matter and so to a large extent it is irrelevant who's in the room but there are other things that [8:59] are complicating these negotiations i mean trump posted on truth social just recently that if iran can't [9:05] comply with the final agreement then quote the shooting starts bigger and better and stronger [9:12] than anyone has ever seen before this is just the latest in a series of threats and there was one [9:17] that really shocked the world uh where he posted that a whole civilization would die just hours before [9:24] the ceasefire remarks that many saw as threatening a genocide so we've got the role of social media [9:30] where you have important people posting a really dramatic threatening language that must make [9:37] negotiations difficult but on the threats how do you approach negotiations when the other side is [9:44] still threatening annihilation well again what people say publicly i mean president trump's remarks were [9:51] reprehensible incomprehensible but to an extent irrelevant he threatens often he uses bluster what happens is [9:58] what's said inside the room that's most important and here's the truth of negotiations the two sides don't [10:03] have to trust each other in fact if they do trust each other you wouldn't have to negotiate friends don't negotiate [10:09] enemies or rivals negotiate so you can even with war going on even with lack of trust you can negotiate because [10:17] here's the underlying reality each side will stick to the deal only as long as it benefits that side so the [10:26] whole purpose of a negotiation is is to construct a scenario where each side drives more benefit from [10:32] adhering to it than breaking it but ambassador i want to get your thoughts on the lack of trust i mean is [10:39] trust an important ingredient of negotiations after all this war did start in the middle of negotiations [10:46] iran was at the table and yet the bombs started falling your thoughts on that definitely trust is very [10:54] important the lack of trust is one of the big issues but at least on the iranian side i think uh who is [11:01] there is in the room is very important the difference of this negotiation if it happens is that the two [11:10] very very high level military commanders of iran uh ali buff who is the speaker of parliament and uh [11:19] zolgadr who is the secretary of national security council they are practically leading the negotiation [11:26] but one of the most important issues between iran and the u.s in last 48 years is that americans and [11:34] iranians always have been focusing on the disputed issues while they have a lot of issues of common [11:42] interest when they agree on disputed issues why they should not immediately start cooperation on the [11:52] issues of common interest as the best venue to create confidence building i mean to for as a [12:00] confidence building measures this is something they should put on the table in addition to the disputed [12:07] issues which we already discussed they can discuss many many issues which iran and the us they have [12:14] common they have in common right so it's israel trafficking organized crime a lot of issues right [12:22] so israel has not been directly involved um in these negotiations with talks as we say taking place [12:28] primarily between the us and iran via intermediaries while israeli prime minister netanyahu has said that [12:34] he will respect he does support the two-week ceasefire the reality is that in israel you had you have [12:41] politicians both to the left and to the right criticizing this deal and lambasting uh netanyahu for [12:48] agreeing to it is israel trying to sabotage this deal yes the reality is that whereas u.s government [12:57] u.s administration war goals are unclear different statements at different times some of them mutually [13:03] inconsistent it's very clear that israel wants out of this war a collapsed iranian state it wants iran [13:11] in a failed state or a near failed state status so it is no longer an existential threat to israel [13:18] israel sees iran as an existential threat one that cannot be negotiated with so anytime the u.s or anybody [13:26] is trying to negotiate with the islamic republic of iran israel says that's not good enough especially [13:32] after october 7th so israel i think will likely seek to sabotage any negotiation or any agreement [13:40] that comes out of this because its goal is not modification of the islamic republic of iran's [13:45] behavior it's elimination of the islamic republic of iran so ambassador that makes your proposition [13:52] difficult you're saying the u.s and iran should begin from that premise of what they have in common [13:58] on the consensus not what divides them but here we have israel that is a one of the main interlocutors [14:05] if not the main interlocutor in this crisis so how does iran in the u.s how do they find each other [14:12] when israel has the intentions uh that ellen has just highlighted here we need to understand the [14:20] israeli at least netanyahu prime minister netanyahu issue is not about iran what he said very clearly [14:26] his strategy his strategy is uh greater israel i mean he publicly said and then we have american [14:34] ambassador in israel who publicly confirmed the strategy and said yes this is the right of israel [14:42] to occupy the other middle eastern countries therefore uh the the issue is not really limited at least [14:50] limited to iran israel has a master plan which uh that's why israelis they push the u.s to attack uh iraq uh [15:02] all attacks on israel lebanon on on uh on iraq on lebanon on syria and now on iran it is part of israeli [15:14] grand strategy this is one issue the second issue is that whether is uh netanyahu is going to accept [15:23] to respect the two state solutions which we have hundreds of united nations resolutions during past [15:30] eight years in the absence of two state solution focusing following the strategy of greater israel [15:40] neither there would be a deal between iran and israel nor there would be peace in the region so so may [15:47] i add one thing to that quickly i was here the other day talking with ambassador dennis ross and he made [15:53] one key point which is if president trump tells benjamin netanyahu to do something related to this war [16:00] prime minister netanyahu will do it so the u.s is the only country that can reign israel in if israel does [16:08] seek to sabotage negotiation efforts or any possible deal okay ambassador let me ask you this one of the [16:15] main uh conditions from the iran side at least is to retain overall control over that very crucial uh [16:22] strait of humus and take tolls from from ships so they will pay to go through um iran has never taken [16:31] payment for ships going through this street and uh these are international waters why would iran do [16:38] that now definitely uh it is because the u.s attacked iran iran never during last 47 years even before [16:49] revolution iran never touched the strait of hormoz although uh many many people they were the hardliners [16:59] they were discussing and they were pushing the every government whether moderate or conservatives to go for [17:05] it but they never did it even during the 2025 war the u.s israel war or iran iran didn't touch the [17:13] strait of hormoz this is a combination of uh the reality that it is in the water territory of iran and [17:24] oman which create rights for both countries and also this is international waterway that's why i am [17:31] talking about a comprehensive deal if there is going to be a comprehensive new security structure [17:40] between iran gcc iraq eight countries around the persian gulf to maintain the security stability in the [17:48] persian gulf then the strait of hormoz could be and should be one of the elements of such a big deal [17:55] alan what do you say to that um it's again ambassador musavian has tremendous experience [18:02] and if you think that's a realistic option i'm certainly not going to disagree i just know from [18:06] my own experience negotiating that solving two issues is harder than one solving three is harder than [18:15] two and solving everything all at once while theoretically possible with this u.s administration [18:22] which has shown a disinclination or perhaps even inability to engage in sustained negotiations [18:29] to include multilateral negotiations because president trump and this administration like doing [18:34] things bilaterally transactionally if that were possible if what ambassador musavian says is possible [18:39] i agree iran has said if any one country in the persian gulf has to have security all of them have to [18:47] so ideally that's a wonderful goal i just don't think you can get there from here ambassador there's [18:52] another important okay let me let me make one one clarification i fully understand and i agree with [18:59] you but what i say alan iran and the us iran and israel iran and gcc they should be able to see the end [19:09] state of a deal to see the end state iran and the us they should discuss and agree on the principles the [19:17] four principles which i mentioned i would be really happy to mention the fifth one which is de-escalation [19:25] bilateral relation of iran and the us and go to our gradual normalization of bilateral relations but [19:34] if they agree on the principles implementation of such agreement should be in uh step by step first [19:43] nuclear if it is uh implemented well then they would go to the second step then they would go to the [19:50] third step this will take time a step by step a face approach not all at once but at the beginning [20:01] they will agree on some principles to show to present to key players whether this is us iran israel gcc [20:11] the end state this is what i mean okay let's just talk about the withdrawal of u.s troops from the [20:17] entire middle east because that is also uh one of the calls or proposals from iran i mean this is a [20:25] demand that would fundamentally change the united states or america's role in the region do you believe [20:32] that this is an option for the u.s total withdrawal from the region no again as both sides approach [20:39] negotiations you're going to put out maximalist positions and each side's positions have moved [20:46] even farther apart since the war in part because we've had far more militarized and and uh hardline [20:53] government in iran since we killed the previous leadership but no i think i mean both both sides [21:01] israel and the united states have demands that i find incomprehensible and one general point again i agree [21:06] with uh ambassador musavian my sort of working thesis is not everything can be solved with diplomacy [21:13] but nothing can be solved without it okay and on that question ambassador on the united states total [21:19] withdrawal from the middle east and it's changing uh the dynamics there is this a reasonable option this [21:27] is what the u.s needs whether this is reasonable or not because the u.s i mean middle east has been [21:34] quackmire for middle east for for the u.s now the u.s does not need oil and gas of the middle east [21:41] persian gulf they they want this is bipartisan agreement understanding that the national interest [21:49] of the u.s is to exit and to invest on the bigger issues like what they say china and so however this [21:56] could be realistic if we can address two issues one is israeli-palestinian crisis which the only [22:05] solution is two-state solution and the second is about iran-arab uh tensions which i have already [22:15] discussed in this uh panel about possibility of a regional cooperation between uh uh arab uh countries [22:23] in the persian gulf with iran uh to be engulfed engaged in a a a regional collective regional [22:31] cooperation like what we see in europe eu or osce if you have iran-arab tensions de-escalated [22:40] converted to cooperation if we have two-state solutions then the u.s will not need to have 46 military [22:49] bases spending trillions of dollars and lives of tens of thousands of its forces in the middle east [22:58] let me ask you a final question we've seen pakistan emerge as a key player here they played a key role [23:05] in where we are today and iran is reportedly asking ships that are passing through the strait to pay the [23:13] tolls in chinese yuan so china is also present there are these signs of the global power shifting away [23:21] from the united states as global south players take the center stage reedy that's a great question you [23:30] know one of the consequences of war you have immediate effects and you have long-term effects and the longer [23:36] out the effects are the less predictable they are but certainly any war and this war have long-term [23:42] consequences and i do think as you said one of the consequences of this war is a diminution [23:49] of american power a weakening of america's ability to influence global events this administration [23:55] doesn't like working collaboratively cooperatively with multinational fora it likes to do things by [24:01] itself and it likes to tell other people what to do it uses tariffs it uses military force so yes i think [24:09] that certainly the rest of the world speaking generalizations are getting pretty tired of the united [24:15] states telling everyone else what to do when they're finding workarounds whether it's won [24:20] as you said or cryptocurrency or people meeting without a u.s diplomat at the table so i think one of [24:26] the long-term consequences will be strategic weakening of america alan air and ambassador musavian [24:33] thank you both for joining us on up front thank you that's our show up front we'll be back next week [24:40] goodbye