The Art of the Failed Negotiation: A Perennial Performance
Axios reports that plans for Iran nuclear talks are 'collapsing' because the U.S. rejected Iran's request to change the location from Istanbul to Oman and shift to a bilateral format. The U.S. stance: 'it is this or nothing, and they said, 'Ok, then nothing.'' This rigidity, we're told, positions President Trump to 'opt for military action' — a classic non-sequitur worthy of a Pulitzer in
strategic scare-mongering. CASE A: This week's 'collapsing' Iran talks, where location and format are presented as insurmountable obstacles to diplomacy. A 'senior U.S. official' is quoted saying, 'We want to reach a real deal quickly or people will look at other options,' clearly implying military force. Curiously, the U.S. is perfectly willing to conduct 'bilateral format' talks in Qatar with
Saudi Arabia or UAE any day of the week, often with far less public fanfare. The idea that a change in venue from Istanbul to Oman, or a shift to focus solely on nuclear issues (the supposed purpose of nuclear talks), is sufficient to 'block the diplomatic path' and reignite threats of war requires a certain suspension of disbelief. One might wonder why a bilateral format, which Iran specifically
requested to 'focus only on nuclear issues and not other matters like missiles,' is so anathema when addressing the primary concern of such negotiations. This isn't the first rodeo. Consider the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA). Following years of intensive, often bilateral, negotiations that frequently shifted locations, the U.S. ultimately abandoned the agreement in 2018 under the Trump