Historical metaphor refers to them as “Nixon in China” moments: diplomatic encounters where leaders representing political systems implacably opposed to each other overcome their mistrust to achieve unexpected breakthroughs,
The Guardian reports.
Yet few meetings can have held less obvious prospect of the success achieved by President Richard Nixon’s historic 1972 visit to Beijing than that scheduled to take place in Oman on Saturday between representatives of the United States and Iran.
The event took the international media by surprise when it was announced by Donald Trump last Monday.
Ostensibly at stake is Iran’s nuclear program, and western fears that the country’s theocratic rulers could convert it into an atomic bomb.
Trump, sitting beside the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office, infused the matter with renewed urgency by warning that Iran would face dire consequences unless a deal could be reached.
“I think if the talks aren’t successful, Iran is going to be in great danger, because they can’t have a nuclear weapon,” he said.
The air of diplomacy backed by threat was reiterated by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Friday. “The ultimate objective is to ensure that Iran can never attain a nuclear weapon … All options are on the table and Iran has a choice to make: you can agree to President Trump’s demand or there will be all hell to pay,” she said.
It seemed an inauspicious way to attempt to surmount two generations of suspicion between two countries since Jimmy Carter severed diplomatic ties in 1980 after Islamic revolutionaries stormed the US embassy in Tehran and held 53 Americans hostage for more than a year.
Compounding that obstacle is the fact that the two sides have given contradictory definitions of format for the talks.
While Trump has said the contacts will be “direct”, Iran insists they will be “indirect”, implying that communications will take place through an unspecified intermediary.
Analysts and veteran diplomats say that difference could portend bigger disagreements, precluding the chance of success, which one veteran US diplomat estimated at ranging from “zero to none”.
“It indicates that serious people are not running the show, because one of the first things you do is you agree on things like commenting on the format and what’s going to happen,” said Dennis Jett, a former US ambassador, international relations professor and author of a book about the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran, which was signed by Barack Obama but abandoned by Trump during his first presidency.
“So if you can’t even agree if it’s direct or indirect … if it’s indirect, it’s a lot harder obviously.”
Foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, leading the Iranian delegation, is one of Iran’s most experienced diplomats who was closely involved in the negotiations that underpinned the 2015 deal, known as the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPOA).
