Why did diplomacy fail between the US and Iran?

Why did diplomacy fail between the US and Iran?

Initial discussions in Geneva appeared promising, according to attendees. Yet, just hours later, the United States and Israel launched an attack on Iran. This raises the question: Was the diplomatic initiative merely a facade? Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi claimed “significant progress” had been made during the talks, emphasizing that Iran had provided assurances against acquiring nuclear material for weapon development. He described this as a “very important breakthrough,” a milestone not previously achieved, as noted in his statements to CBS News and on X. The day prior, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi echoed similar sentiments, highlighting “progress” and “mutual understanding” in a post on X.

Despite these positive remarks, the assault began early Saturday morning. US President Donald Trump defended the strikes, citing “threats” from Tehran. He declared that “major combat operations” had begun in Iran, stating the objective was to “defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu aligned with this stance, arguing that the “murderous terrorist regime” should not be allowed to arm itself with nuclear weapons capable of endangering global populations.

Experts now question whether the talks were misinterpreted or if the attack was premeditated. Marcus Schneider, head of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation’s Beirut-based Regional Peace and Security Project, dismissed the idea of a fundamental misunderstanding. “I don’t think it was a misunderstanding,” he stated. Instead, he suggested the Omani mediator’s optimism reflected a “last-ditch attempt to prevent this war from starting.” Schneider noted that the US had shown “significantly less enthusiasm” for the negotiations from the outset. Diba Mirzaei, an Iran specialist at the German Institute for Global and Area Studies, echoed this, doubting that the talks were viewed differently across nations. “I don’t think these negotiations have been interpreted differently,” she said, adding that Oman’s strong advocacy for a better agreement underscored “what is actually at stake.”

“Fundamentally, the negotiations could never have been successful because the positions were so extremely different,” Schneider said. He argued that Washington’s demands amounted to “tantamount to complete surrender,” a stance Iran refused to accept. Mirzaei further pointed out that Oman’s chief diplomat would not have publicized his statements without “solid evidence,” implying the attack was a calculated move.

While the attack surprised some, Mirzaei was not entirely surprised. She noted the US had been amassing military assets in the region for weeks, making a “show of force” implausible. Schneider also challenged Trump’s assertion of an immediate Iranian threat, calling it “not particularly high” in truth. He described the potential conflict as a “so-called war of choice,” suggesting it would be a war the US initiated “because it wants to wage it.” Mirzaei concluded that the talks aimed to secure a “new agreement” or a “better deal,” but the US’s history of escalation indicates a reliance on pressure to achieve concessions. Whether this approach will yield a sustainable outcome remains uncertain.