Iran’s new president, Massoud Pezeshkian, has embarked on a mission to project a moderate, rational image of the regime to the world. In his recent address to the United Nations General Assembly, Pezeshkian pledged that Iran did not seek to destabilize the Middle East and only desired peace. He even went so far as to propose a “new era of cooperation” with the West and expressed openness to engaging in nuclear talks. His efforts have already yielded results, securing a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron on the sidelines of the UNGA. This suggests a renewed eagerness within the Iranian government to improve relations with European countries.
While the IAEA Director-General, Rafael Grossi, reported seeing an openness from Iran regarding meaningful discussions on its nuclear program, experts remain skeptical. They argue that Pezeshkian’s moderate facade is merely a calculated move to appease the international community. The real power, they emphasize, lies with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini, who holds ultimate control over the Iranian government.
Ambassador James Jeffrey, a seasoned diplomat with experience in the Middle East, describes Pezeshkian as “a moderate by the standards of Iran.” He suggests that Khameini’s approval of Pezeshkian’s candidacy signals a desire for a more favorable relationship with the West. Jeffrey further explains that Iran’s dire economic situation, exacerbated by sanctions despite continued oil exports, is a key factor driving this shift. Pezeshkian’s task, according to Jeffrey, is to calm tensions with Western states and improve Iran’s economic prospects.
However, Pezeshkian’s visit to the U.S. coincides with a wave of tensions between Iran and the United States. Former President Trump recently disclosed that he received briefings about Iranian plots to assassinate him, following allegations that Iran hacked information from his campaign and attempted to disseminate it to Democrats and the media. Additionally, Iran’s shipment of ballistic missiles to Russia for use in the Ukrainian conflict has further heightened concerns about its intentions.
Despite the potential for diplomatic engagement, Iran’s nuclear program remains a major point of contention. The country has significantly advanced its nuclear capabilities, enriching uranium at a level close to the 90% threshold required for weapons production. Reports suggest renewed activity at two nuclear weapon test sites – Sanjarian and Golab Dareh – fueling concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Iran’s nuclear expert, Nicole Grajewski, acknowledges that the country has made significant strides in nuclear technology. She warns that reversing this knowledge is unlikely, suggesting that Iran will likely attempt to leverage this advancement to secure the lifting of sanctions and pursue diplomatic negotiations. Jeffrey echoes this sentiment, arguing that past attempts to engage with Iran have resulted in the country gaining leverage and delaying progress.
He warns that the temptation to make a deal with Iran is a persistent issue, driven by the desire to prevent the nation from developing nuclear weapons and avoid potential conflict. However, past negotiations have often yielded one-sided agreements, with Iran profiting while failing to commit to its obligations. The situation creates a complex dilemma for the United States, as both former President Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have expressed divergent views on the Iran deal.
Trump, while advocating for a tough stance against Iran, has also expressed his openness to negotiations. His unpredictable approach, while potentially intimidating to Iran, also suggests a willingness to engage in deals for strategic gain. On the other hand, Harris, a staunch critic of Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran deal, remains skeptical about the effectiveness of negotiation with the Iranian regime. The situation remains uncertain, with the future of the relationship between Iran and the United States hinging on the actions and intentions of both sides.
