Iran Seen as Gaining Upper Hand in Talks as Trump Uses Coercive Tactics to Force Arab States to Recognise Israel
TEHRAN — Donald Trump’s use of the Abraham Accords as part of ‘barter’ in talks with Iran underscores Tehran’s growing advantage over the US in negotiations, according to US and Arab officials, both current and former. Trump is accused of attempting to divert attention from the core issues of the talks.
“Trump knows he is getting a deal that undermines every war objective he supported after February 28. So he is trying to create a bigger deal,” said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator, to Middle East Eye.
“This is classic Trump,” added Miller, now a senior researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
The proposed deal would extend the ceasefire for 60 days. As part of the negotiations, Iran would reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for the lifting of oil sales sanctions, the same location where the US has imposed a blockade on Tehran.
The deal does not address Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal, which The New York Times reports is at 70% of pre-war levels.
A former senior US official told Middle East Eye that Trump appears to expect compensation from Gulf states for ending the war in Iran.
“Trump’s approach to the Abraham Accords is based on the mistaken belief that the countries he dragged into the conflict — which resulted in the bombing of their cities and critical infrastructure — owe him a debt for ending the war,” the former senior official told Middle East Eye.
Trump has provided various justifications for his February decision to launch a war against Iran alongside Israel. At times, he claimed the strikes were to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
He also stated that the US aimed to destroy Iran’s conventional military capabilities, and at other times, hinted that regime change was the primary objective.
In a separate social media post on Monday, Trump said Iran’s enriched uranium would be handed over to the US and destroyed or dismantled in coordination with Iran at an “acceptable location”.
The statement was interpreted by some analysts as a US concession to China or Russia, both of which have close ties with Iran.