While authorities in Tehran and Washington had reported the US-Iran negotiations in Muscat and Rome as positive and constructive, the fourth round of these talks, which was scheduled to be held in Rome, has been met with suspension and postponement. Omani officials have cited “logistical” issues, namely problems related to executive and logistical matters, as the reason for this pause. However, such a delay was anticipated, and its cause lies not in the logistical difficulties announced by Omani officials but rather in the fundamental lack of flexibility and displays of rigidity that the parties were expected to address through bargaining over demands and negotiating points to secure concessions at the negotiating table.
In other words, it was foreseeable that as the negotiations progressed, they would face challenges due to the nature of the demands and issues or the substantive disagreements. These substantive disagreements can deter the talks, given that Iran is unwilling to negotiate on missile issues and its regional power according to US demands. Meanwhile, the US seeks to limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities while curbing its influence in missile development and regional power.
Furthermore, the US demands that Iran refrain from enriching uranium domestically and instead import its needs if necessary. It also transferred its enriched uranium stockpile to a third country, preferably the United States. Iran views these US demands as an impossible obligation and is unwilling to accept them, meaning Iran is not prepared to reach an agreement with the US in the Trump era on its most vital instruments of survival.
Beyond the substantive problems, internal challenges within the US should be considered another reason for postponing the fourth round of negotiations. In this regard, the dismissal of Mike Waltz, Trump’s National Security Advisor, and his deputy, Alex Wong, in the ‘Signalgate’ scandal, coupled with Michael Waltz’s lack of coordination with Trump due to differing stances on dealing with Iran, are among the main reasons for the delay in the negotiations. The reality is that Waltz, along with figures such as Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, and Pete Hegseth, constitute the hawkish and pro-war triangle within Trump’s cabinet. This circle is reinforced by an external element named “Bibi Netanyahu.” These individuals advocate for the “military” option against Iran, Trump favors the”diplomacy and peacemaking”option and has no desire to see the window of diplomacy closed in dealing with Iran. Therefore, any member of Trump’s cabinet who is not aligned with him will be dismissed and must leave his administration.
Accordingly, Waltz’s dismissal joins Mike Flynn, James Mattis, Nikki Haley, Steve Bannon, Rex Tillerson, and John Bolton in the first term. Trump had dismissed them in his first term due to their lack of coordination with him. Thus, the reason for Waltz’s dismissal is the difference in views on Iran, which is a significant factor in the suspension of negotiations in Rome today, Saturday, May 3rd.
Consequently, three scenarios are likely to arise from the postponement and pause in the process of US-Iran negotiations.
The first anticipated scenario is an opportunity that this delay affords Iran. In this regard, this situation allows Iran to strengthen its positions and exploit the instability within the US team to gain further concessions.
The second foreseeable scenario is the weakening of trust between the parties in the future resumption of negotiations. This scenario is linked to the replacement of Michael Waltz with Marco Rubio in a position such as US National Security Advisor and US Representative to the United Nations. In this context, the reality is that Waltz, due to his hawkish stance against Iran, was an obstacle to the progress of negotiations. His resignation could open the space for a more diplomatic approach. Still, the temporary replacement of Waltz with Marco Rubio, who holds conservative views, may indicate a continuation of strict policies in the short term, which could reduce and weaken Iran’s trust in the US in a new round of negotiations.
The third scenario strengthens Iran’s idea of time-buying, which the US had anticipated and warned against in the indirect negotiations.
Indeed, the current postponement and pause in the negotiations bring the negotiation process closer to the salami-slicing tactic, as Grieg Snider stated in his book Contemporary Security and Strategy. According to Snider, salami slicing refers to a situation where negotiations become protracted. The back-and-forth between the parties continues for so long that the main issue, “agreement,” becomes a casualty and is lost in this waste of time, because there is no urgency. Thus, this situation serves Iran’s overt and covert goals in the indirect negotiations, namely, time-buying and wasting time. The indirect outcome of this delay (stalling negotiations) is what Netanyahu and the hardliners, or the negotiation opponents in Iran, desire.
