Iran (IMNA) - The Swiss city once again serves as the backdrop for high-stakes diplomacy, hosting delegations from the two nations amid a backdrop of historical grievances, deep-seated mistrust, and complex regional developments. The legacy of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) looms large over the proceedings. That landmark agreement, forged after months of intensive talks, was effectively dismantled in 2018 following Washington’s unilateral withdrawal, severely damaging the prospects for future cooperation.
According to analysis from Tehran, the central issue is no longer whether a mutual understanding is achievable—past experience has proven it is—but whether the political resolve exists to forge a durable accord. From Iran's perspective, the legal and political onus rests with the United States, the party that abandoned the previous agreement and disrupted the balance of mutual commitments.
Following the US withdrawal, Iranian officials note that Tehran adhered to its obligations for an extended period, only scaling back its commitments after being deprived of the deal's promised economic relief. Consequently, the initiative now lies with America.
"If Washington claims it seeks to resolve the nuclear file, now is the time to prove that claim," a source familiar with Tehran's position stated, adding that Iran remains prepared for dialogue focused strictly on the nuclear issue, conducted with respect for the nation's dignity and interests. Tehran has reiterated that nuclear weapons hold no place in its defense doctrine and has expressed readiness to address technical or political concerns and accept agreed-upon monitoring mechanisms within a transparent framework.
For Iran, the principle of dialogue is not in question; the critical factors are the framework, balance, and final outcome.
Focus on Nuclear File, Avoid 'Scope Creep'
While the pathway to addressing nuclear non-proliferation concerns through a verifiable agreement is clear, a significant point of contention is the potential for negotiations to become protracted or for the scope of demands to expand. Previous experience indicates that introducing non-nuclear issues, such as regional matters or Iran's defensive capabilities, complicates dialogue and falls outside the parameters of a nuclear agreement.
"Endless expansion of issues not only fails to facilitate agreement but deepens mistrust," the analysis stated, emphasizing that resolving the nuclear file requires focus.
A balanced agreement is seen as mutually beneficial. For Iran, the lifting of sanctions would unlock economic growth through normal trade and financial interactions. For the US, reducing tensions in a volatile region could lower security costs and contribute to stability in global energy markets, a factor with direct implications for the American economy.
The Role of Third Parties
The influence of external actors, particularly Israel, was also highlighted. While Israel has consistently opposed an Iran-US agreement and sought to align its concerns with those of Washington, analysts suggest that its interests do not fully converge with America's strategic goals. Continued tensions could serve internal purposes for Tel Aviv, whereas the US stands to gain from reduced regional engagement costs.
As the Geneva talks commence, the United States faces a strategic choice: pursue a focused, balanced agreement addressing only the nuclear issue, or risk deadlock by introducing new demands. Experience suggests that major diplomatic breakthroughs require high-level political decisions.
"Iran has declared that it is ready to engage in talks on the nuclear issue and to remove misunderstandings, and can even provide guarantees to address America’s stated concerns," the source emphasized. However, Tehran will not accept negotiations becoming a tool for additional pressure or the imposition of extraneous issues.
Tuesday's meeting is viewed as a test of intentions. The path to a resolution is clear: a focus on the nuclear issue, practical sanctions relief, and reciprocal guarantees. The alternative, analysts warn, is a continuation of mistrust.
The future of the nuclear file ultimately rests not on technical details but on political will. With Iran having declared its readiness, the focus now turns to Washington to determine whether it seeks a genuine and lasting agreement or the perpetuation of a cycle of pressure and promises. Geneva holds the potential to be the starting point of a new chapter where diplomacy prevails, contingent on a final decision in Washington based on long-term interests over external pressures.
Your Comment