The long-awaited fourth round of negotiations between Iran and the Donald Trump administration took place on Saturday, May 3rd. The talks were expected to be more high-level and direct this time around, adding to the seriousness and anticipation of the process. After the negotiations, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Ismail Baqaei said, “The contradictory statements by American officials do not help the negotiations and, of course, have no impact on our determination to insist on our principled position. If the American side is sincere in its demands that Iran should not have nuclear weapons, many problems can be solved because we have demonstrated that we do not have a nuclear weapons program.” The time and place of the next negotiations are not yet known. However, it seems that the White House under Trump will continue to carry contradictions and uncertainties for Iran.
Trump’s harsh statements in the past and his occasional references to military force may have created the perception in some quarters that America will ultimately emerge victorious from these negotiations. In particular, some media outlets in Iran and Persian-language platforms abroad have compared the process to the US negotiations with Libya, which had negative consequences for Libya.
However, this analogy may be an incomplete one. The Libyan example is based on previous American administrations, not the Trump era. The possible diplomatic maneuvers of the US today, and even the ability of the parties to prevent negative developments, can be more predictable by looking at the experience of countries that have negotiated directly with Trump. This is because Trump’s negotiating style is quite different from that of previous presidents: direct, at times aggressive, but capable of surprisingly backing down when necessary. Afghanistan, Korea or the recent tensions with Mexico and Canada provide a perspective in this context.
Taliban: An Example of Good Timing
The example of Afghanistan is striking in this respect. In the first term of his presidency, Trump wanted to reduce the American military presence in Afghanistan. To this end, he started negotiations directly with the Taliban. During the negotiations in Doha, the capital of Qatar, the Taliban made some commitments on paper: It would not attack US and NATO forces, it would not allow groups like al-Qaeda to return to Afghanistan.
In return, the US agreed to a gradual withdrawal of troops and the release of some Taliban members. Following these agreements, American troops began to withdraw. Trump lost the elections and was replaced by Biden. The Taliban took advantage of the vacuum and quickly mobilized and overthrew the US-backed government in Afghanistan. Today the Taliban rule the country.
North Korea: Strategy to Strengthen Political Position
North Korea followed a similar path. The Trump administration harshly criticized and even ridiculed Kim Jong-un, leading to escalating tensions and talk of the possibility of military force. But in 2018, Kim Jong-un sat down with Trump in Singapore. They discussed lifting all sanctions, theoretically in exchange for the abandonment of nuclear weapons development. This process has strengthened the North Korean leader’s political position at the global level.
However, no agreement was reached at the second summit. As the negotiations were slow, Kim ended the talks. In retrospect, it was North Korea that made a tangible gain in the process, while Trump failed to get what he wanted diplomatically.
Canada and Mexico: The Consequences of a Clear Attitude
The Trump administration has taken a similar line on trade agreements. It exited NAFTA and pushed for new agreements. However, over time, it has expressed that these new agreements are not satisfactory for the US either. Despite this, Canada and Mexico have negotiated more directly and openly in recent years. These countries have strengthened their positions against some of Trump’s rhetoric. Despite the rhetoric, especially regarding Canada’s sovereignty, a more balanced relationship seems to be emerging between the parties.
What awaits Iran?
All these examples illustrate the hallmarks of Trump’s negotiating style, which is full of ambiguity and contradictions: A hard start, intense pressure, but a more flexible approach at the negotiating table than is often expected.
Iran, too, seems to be approaching this process with preparedness and self-confidence. Even seemingly weak countries can make significant gains by seizing opportunities and adopting the right strategy and timing. There are examples of this in Iranian political history. For example, in the 1940s, Prime Minister Ahmad Kavam was able to persuade the Soviet Union to withdraw from South Azerbaijan while at the same time turning down their demands to grant oil concessions.
On the other hand, Iran could gain a diplomatic advantage in the next round of negotiations by making it clear that the Trump administration’s unilateral withdrawal from the nuclear deal in the previous period was in violation of international law. How to compensate for the damage this step has caused to the Iranian economy and how to prevent similar decisions from being repeated may also be topics of discussion that Iran may bring up in the future.
An early conclusion of the negotiations seems unlikely. It is also possible that the negotiations will be protracted or even stalled at times.
