Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani speaks during a press conference in Tehran, Iran on December 14, 2020. (Photo: Iranian Presidency/Handout/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani speaks during a press conference in Tehran, Iran on December 14, 2020. (Photo: Iranian Presidency/Handout/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

Iran's Refusal to Meet Not Surprising

There is no perfect solution to this imperfect situation. Both sides will have to swallow some pride and pay a political cost.

Trita Parsi

 by Responsible Statecraft

Sunday’s news that Iran has rejected a European Union invitation to host talks with the United States is a truly negative and problematic development — complicating already difficult challenges further and jeopardizing the fate of the 2015 nuclear deal.

But it is not surprising. Here’s why:

As I wrote yesterday in The Guardian, the idea that Iran would talk directly with the United States while Washington maintained its current level of sanctions was tried by President Trump for three years. It didn’t work then, and it likely won’t work now. 

Don’t take my word for it. This is what Wendy Sherman, Biden’s nominee for deputy secretary of state, said about it in 2019: I “would be shocked if Iran agreed to a meeting without some sanctions relief.” Sherman was right. Iran’s calculation is more simple than one might think. If Tehran agrees to talks while Biden essentially continues Trump’s “maximum pressure” policy, and those talks fail, Iran will be blamed — even though the United States has done nothing to rectify what caused this crisis in the first place: Trump’s 2018 exit from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA.

So, without changing any of the dynamics that Biden inherited from Trump, the United States will have succeeded in hitting the ball, and the blame, to Iran’s court, if future discussions collapse. Sure, the new administration has stated that it intends to re-enter the JCPOA, something Trump never signaled, and that change in public intent is not inconsequential. But, in a relationship mired in mistrust, publicly stated intent means little if actions fail to match the intent. This is where the last month of childish, trust-eroding squabbles over who must make the first step toward renewed compliance with the JCPOA first comes in.

Washington’s public insistence that Iran take action first by curbing its enrichment activities while at the same time pushing the EU to punish Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency  — even though the United States formally remains outside of the deal and has yet to be sanctioned for it — all erode confidence in Tehran that Biden is serious. It makes the move of joining the talks before receiving any significant sanctions relief all the more risky for the Iranian leadership. 

Biden even refuses to allow Iran access to its own money in South Korea, even though the situation has created major problems for Seoul and was the result of an inhumane policy Biden previously lambasted as something that should just not have been done  when Iran is coping with the COVID pandemic.

The Biden team of course knows this quite well. So what explains their conduct? It appears to be Biden’s own decision, driven by a refusal to be “pressured by Iran” to give something before talks can begin and the fear that he’ll lose the support of hawkish Democrats whose votes he needs for the COVID relief package. The attacks in Iraq by groups aligned with Iran further hardened Biden’s attitude, which is quite understandable. What we’re witnessing is Biden’s instinctive resistance to pressure, and the fear of coming under attack by hawks in his own party if he was perceived as backing down.

This is precisely why, from the outset, the Biden team should have done their utmost to avoid engaging in public fights over “who goes first.” This is the inevitable outcome: everything becomes more politically costly. Even before real talks have begun. 

So is there a way out of this deadlock? If the political will exists on both sides, they can overcome this. But political will erodes if there’s a constant fear of “looking weak.” Obama was relentlessly attacked for his Iran policy. He was falsely accused of bending over backwards for the Iranians. In the end, he didn’t care. He was focused on the prize –the unquestionable national security imperative of preventing an Iranian bomb and avoiding war. He prioritized what would make diplomacy work, rather than on what would score political points with Republicans, Saudis, or Israelis. And guess what — he secured a great deal — something no other American president was able to do in the last 40 years.

What could potentially break the deadlock now is if Washington urges the EU to walk back from its threatened IAEA censure, and releases the Iranian funds in South Korea, while Iran joins the talks and reverses one or more of its recent moves to accelerate its uranium enrichment program.

Admittedly, this is an imperfect solution, but there is no perfect solution to this imperfect situation. Both sides will have to swallow some pride and pay a political cost. And the longer they wait, the higher that cost will be. Time is of the essence.


© 2021 Responsible Statecraft
Trita Parsi

Trita Parsi

Trita Parsi is Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute and an expert on US-Iranian relations, Iranian foreign politics, and the geopolitics of the Middle East. He is author of "Losing an Enemy - Obama, Iran and the Triumph of Diplomacy"; "A Single Roll of the Dice - Obama's Diplomacy with Iran"; and "Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States."

We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.

UN Officials Warn of 'Record-Shattering Month' for Civilian Deaths in Yemen

Following deadly strikes by the Saudi-led coalition, Oxfam is calling on the U.N. Security Council to condemn attacks on Yemenis and to "inject new urgency" into peace talks.

Jessica Corbett ·


Experts Say Nuclear Energy as Climate Solution Is Total 'Fiction'

"The reality is nuclear is neither clean, safe, or smart; but a very complex technology with the potential to cause significant harm."

Jessica Corbett ·


Air and Water Under Threat as SCOTUS Targets Environmental Laws

"It seems like we have a new conservative supermajority on the court that is much more inclined to do a slash-and-burn expedition through our major environmental laws."

Julia Conley ·


'Historic Turning Point': Cuba Issues Plan for Vaccine Internationalism

"This lifesaving package," said the head of Progressive International's delegation to Cuba, exemplifies public health and science being "placed above private profit and petty nationalism."

Kenny Stancil ·


Fridays For Future Announces Global Climate Strike for March 25

"Join us for the Global Climate Strike as we demand policymakers and world leaders to prioritize #PeopleNotProfit!"

Common Dreams staff ·

Support our work.

We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100% reader supported.

Subscribe to our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values.
Direct to your inbox.

Subscribe to our Newsletter.


Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit | Privacy Policy
Common Dreams Logo