Washington's Incomplete Response to Tehran's Conditions | Why Has an Interim Deal Become Difficult?

Diplomatic efforts to end the Iran-US war continue, while statements by Iranian officials point to a stalled negotiation track. Disputes over Tehran's conditions, the mechanics of reciprocal commitments, and the nuclear file remain the main obstacles to reaching an agreement.

According to Arjan's ambassador, Mohsen Rezaei, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, said that America has agreed to a part of Iran's seven conditions, but Washington's response still has ambiguities that need to be resolved. At the same time, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has announced the continuation of exchanging messages through mediators; A process that has not yet led to a clear and enforceable agreement.

Washington's incomplete response to Tehran's conditions

Referring to the latest diplomatic developments, Mohsen Rezaei has announced that the United States has accepted some of Iran's demands, but it must clear the remaining ambiguities in order to continue. According to him, the clarification of Washington's position can provide the basis for entering the next steps.

Election game with war card Trump and Netanyahu need war to survive in power?

Israel's attack was postponed until after the election! | The Israeli army is not capable of a new war

Will Iran make a preemptive attack before the US elections?

Why don't elections determine the course of war? | A war beyond the battlefield

Ismail Beqaei, the spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, also announced the continuation of the exchange of messages through mediators in his weekly press conference. According to him, Tehran is investigating the points raised by the United States and after the end of these investigations, it will send its answer through the mediators.

These statements show that the communication channels are still active, but the continuation of the calls cannot be considered as the definitive approach of the two sides to an agreement. The main issue is not simply accepting or rejecting terms, but how to transform possible understandings into specific and enforceable commitments.

Korosh Ahmadi, a former diplomat, believes that the disagreement over the order of implementation of commitments and mutual scoring has made it difficult to even reach a temporary agreement. According to him, the main point of the negotiations is what points each side should present at what stage and against which actions of the other side.

According to the reports, in the form of its seven conditions, Iran has demanded measures such as the removal of oil export restrictions, the release of blocked assets and the end of the maritime blockade. Tehran also wants to implement these measures at a specific interval, about five to seven days before the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

On the other hand, it seems that Washington does not want to offer these concessions only against the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and wants to link them to the progress of nuclear negotiations and Iran's actions in this area. In this way, each party tries to make sure of the action of the other party before giving away important points; An approach that makes reaching agreement more complicated given the accumulated mistrust.

Can Russia be an effective mediator?

Along with the efforts of Qatar and Pakistan, the announcement of Vladimir Putin's readiness to help end the war has drawn attention to Russia's possible role. Putin's meeting with Massoud Mezikian and the Russian President's phone call with his American counterpart have added to the importance of this issue.

However, there is still no clear indication of the formation of a formal initiative with the participation of Moscow. Russia also has certain strategic calculations in its interactions with Washington, including in the case of Ukraine; Thus, the Kremlin's stated readiness does not necessarily mean independent mediation or reaching a decisive outcome.

An agreement whose main issue is durability

In the current situation, the continuation of economic pressure and naval blockade, along with the possibility of limited attacks, are conceivable scenarios; However, their occurrence or the re-expansion of the war cannot be considered certain.

Even if Tehran and Washington reach a limited understanding, disagreements over the nuclear issue, the timing of lifting restrictions and guaranteeing the implementation of commitments could make it fragile. From Tehran's point of view, it is important to receive concrete points before handing over the bargaining levers; On the other hand, Washington also wants to ensure Iran's actions in the nuclear field.

Finally, staying the course of diplomacy alone does not guarantee the end of war. As long as the two sides do not reach an understanding about the order of actions, mutual concessions, and the mechanism for implementing commitments, even a temporary agreement will face serious obstacles. The decisive issue is not merely declaring readiness to negotiate; Rather, it is to find an arrangement that none of the parties consider as a unilateral concession of privileges.