It’s surprisingly pragmatic and could serve as a face-saving off-ramp for Trump 2.0.
Andrew Korybko
Former
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who represents the
interests of his country’s reformist (moderate) faction against its
principalist (conservative) rivals, published a proposal about “How Iran Should End the War”
at Foreign Affairs. He began by extolling Iran’s resistance as proof of
its victory over the US and Israel before addressing those who want to
continue the conflict by reminding them of the growing economic and
humanitarian consequences. Only then did he share his proposal.
In
his words, “[Iran] should offer to place limits on its nuclear program
and to reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for an end to all
sanctions—a deal Washington wouldn’t take before but might accept now.
Iran should also be prepared to accept a mutual nonaggression pact with
the United States in which both countries pledge to not strike each
other in the future. It could offer economic interactions with the
United States, which would be a win for both the American and the
Iranian people.”
As the first step, a ceasefire could be
agreed to in exchange for Iran fully reopening the strait and the US
fully lifting its sanctions, which would establish the basis for
resuming negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program and a permanent peace
deal. As regards the first, Zarif proposes placing his country’s
facilities under full international monitoring, while the second could
come about through a regional collective security agreement supported by the UNSC that would complement his proposed non-aggression pact.
He
also wrote that “Iran and the United States should initiate mutually
beneficial trade, economic, and technological cooperation”, including in
the energy sector, and that Iran should request US financial support
for its reconstruction as a form of reparations for allaying public
opposition to any peace deal. This mirrors what was proposed here
in early March about a post-war resource-centric strategic partnership
between Iran and the US modelled off of the one that Russia and the US
are negotiating.
Although
not mentioned in Zarif’s proposal, Iran could sweeten the deal by
agreeing not to sell any more oil to China as was proposed here before the war, which would advance Trump 2.0’s “strategy of (resource) denial” vis-à-vis China and thus fulfill his unstated goal in the war that was described here.
Returning back to his proposal, he concluded that “Emotions may be
high, and each side is boasting about its war-front victories. But history best remembers those who make peace.”
Reflecting
on it, he has a point about how it’s better to reach a deal than for
Iran to continue to suffer increasingly more devastating economic and
humanitarian losses, especially since civilian targets are now being
struck more frequently and Trump threatened to destroy
Iran’s energy industry. Even if Iran retaliates against the Gulf, “the
destruction of the region’s infrastructure will not compensate Iran’s
losses”, which is true. Because he represents the reformists, however,
the principalists might ignore him.
Therein lies the
importance of publishing his proposal in Foreign Affairs, which is read
by US diplomats, thus possibly inspiring them to bring it to Secretary
of State Marco Rubio’s attention as a face-saving off-ramp in the event
that Trump is looking for one like some claim. Trump might instead have
his mind set on radically transforming the world order by taking the
region’s energy exports offline for the indefinite future now that the
US no longer needs them, but if he’s not, then this is arguably his best
bet for peace.