Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Opinion

Opinion: In US–Iran relations, compromise is both possible and probable

8 March 2021
Benyamin Poghosyan

Iranian hardliners are mostly rational political actors who are not ready to sacrifice Iran's security, and their own power, for the sake of ideological animosity towards the US or Israel, argues Benyamin Poghosyan in this op-ed for commonspace.eu. Even if a hardliner wins next June’s presidential election in Iran compromise with the US on the nuclear file is not only possible, but probable. This will be in the interest of both the US and Iran, as well as the entire Middle east region.

Relations with Iran are among the top priorities for the Biden administration. Since President Trump withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal and imposed new sanctions in May 2018, Washington and Tehran have been on a collision course. Iran's decision to start to break some of the deal’s requirements in May 2019, and the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani in January 2020,  added fuel to bilateral animosity. The Trump administration facilitated the Israel–Gulf States dialogue seeking to create a united front against Tehran. The US put forward clear demands to Iran – to amend the nuclear deal, get rid of so-called sunset clauses, and include restrictions on Iran's regional activities and ballistic missile programs. While Democrats criticised Trump's decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal, they agreed that Iran's "malign activities in the region" and its missile program needed to be addressed.

After the elections in November 2020, the incoming Biden administration indicated that it was ready to bring the US back to the nuclear deal. However, the Americans argued that Iran should return to full compliance with the deal as a first step, and then the US will repeal the sanctions imposed by President Trump. Iran's answer was tough and clear – the US breached the deal, and the US should make the first step in canceling sanctions. Meanwhile, the Americans hinted that after the restoration of the deal, the two sides could start discussions on Iran's regional policy and missile program, while according to Iran, the US has nothing to do with either of these topics.

The upcoming presidential election in Iran plays a role in shaping Iran's policy towards the US offers. The Iranian hardliners won the February 2020 Parliamentary elections, and they have good chances to win the Presidency. The nuclear deal is one of the key tools in the hands of hardliners in their criticism of the moderate camp. They argue that President Rouhani's entire policy of opening towards the US was a big mistake as a result of which Iran made unilateral concessions which brought no positive results. Rouhani himself cannot run again due to the constitutional term limits, but he definitely is interested in seeing a candidate of the moderate camp winning the election. In the current political atmosphere, any perceived concessions by Rouhani towards the US will be immediately exploited by hardliners and will damage the standing of moderates. Thus, neither moderates nor hardliners are interested in any opening with the US until after the June 2021 elections. The assassination in late November 2020 of Iranian nuclear physicist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh added more tensions. In the aftermath of the attack, blamed on Israel, the Iranian parliament passed a law calling for the annual production and storage of at least 120 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium, and to put an end to the IAEA inspections intended to check that the country is not developing an atomic bomb.

In mid-February 2021, Iran announced it would stop implementing the IAEA's additional protocol, effectively limiting which facilities nuclear inspectors could scrutinise and when they could access them. However, on 22 February 2021, Iran and IAEA reached an interim deal for three months, according to which the same number of international inspectors would remain in Iran, but their access to nuclear facilities would be more limited, and they would not be allowed to conduct last-minute snap inspections.

In their turn, Israel and the Gulf Arab states are raising alarm bells on Iran's nuclear deal breach. Israeli Prime Minister, Benyamin Netanyahu, made several tough statements arguing that Israel would never allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb, and was ready to use military force to prevent such a development. Israel is in the midst of an election campaign for the fourth snap Parliamentary elections within two years, scheduled for 23 March, and Iran's nuclear program is one of the key foreign policy topics discussed during the campaign.

The complicated situation in and around Iran is also a part of wider geopolitics. Last year Iran and China reached a preliminary agreement to sign a 25-year strategic partnership deal worth of 400 billion USD, which may transform Iran into a launchpad for China to project its power in the Middle East. Chinese-Iranian strategic cooperation will include petrochemical production, renewable energy and civilian nuclear energy, construction of high-speed railways, highways, subways, airports, and maritime connections. The agreement would give China a presence in the Gulf, notably through the port of Jask, just outside the Straits of Hormuz – a transit passage for a significant part of the world's oil.

Russia is also making efforts to develop its relations with Iran. Iran signed an interim agreement to form free trade area with the Eurasian Economic Union in May 2018. Recently discussions have been launched regarding Iran's possible membership into the Eurasian Economic Union. During his visit to Moscow on Feb. 10, 2021, Mohammad Baqer Ghalibaf, speaker of the Iranian parliament and potential hardliner candidate for the presidential elections, declared that Iran may permanently join the EAEU in two weeks if a relevant decision is made by the EAEU. Obviously, such statements are premature, but they indicate the Iranian leadership's intention to foster their relations with the US global rivals or, or at least use the prospect of such a possibility as a tool to balance US pressure.

Nonetheless, it should be noted that Iranian hardliners are mostly rational political actors who are not ready to sacrifice Iran's security, and their own power, for the sake of ideological animosity towards the US or Israel. They understand quite well that Iran needs Western technologies and investments. China may replace the West, but the best option for Iran is to keep both channels open. The same applies to their relations with Israel. Iranian politicians will continue to criticise Israel, and even call for its destruction to unite the population against an external enemy. However, they are fully aware that even a limited Israeli military attack against Iran may have unpredictable results. The Iranian authorities will have to answer, and the chain of attacks/counterattacks may easily spiral out of control bringing the US military in. Thus, most probably after the June 2021 presidential election, Iran will intensify backchannel diplomacy with the US currently underway through the mediation of Oman. Iran will never cross its red lines, such as giving up the right for uranium enrichment, its influence in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon, and the domestic defence industry's development. However, in all these areas, compromises are possible, and the US, Iran, and the entire Middle East will be better off if compromises are reached.

Source: This op-ed was prepared for commonspace.eu by Benyamin Poghosyan, Founder and Chairman of the Center for Political and Economic Strategic Studies in Yerevan.

 

The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?
Trending

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security
Trending

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

13 November 2026
Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest
Trending

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

7 September 2026
Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026
There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)
Dennis Sammut