Clinch quick US deal before it's too late, former officials say

With the hawks in Washington pushing for a tougher stance on Iran, and the talks appearing to lose some positive initial momentum after three rounds, a sense of urgency about a potential deal appears to be taking hold in Tehran.

Former officials and media pundits are urging a swift agreement with the United States, warning that delays could harden President Trump’s position or allow regional developments to close the door on diplomacy.

“Time is certainly working against us this time. Reaching an agreement today is better than doing so tomorrow,” former minister Abbas Akhundi said in an interview with moderate daily Etemad on Monday.

“Trump is an opportunity if you understand his logic and act at the right time,” Akhundi added. “He is not someone who will be willing to negotiate forever … so we must be able to conclude the negotiations in a short time.”

Such bold statements on a potential thaw with the US are tolerated, if not encouraged, because supreme leader Ali Khamenei has not only endorsed the negotiations but also hushed its hardline opponents with his customary cryptic messaging.

Any viable nuclear deal would require significant concessions on Iran’s part. Khamenei needs to make those palatable to the loyalists who back him in the face of growing popular discontent. The longer the process the harder his task will become.

Regional developments are also a factor. Ceasefires in the Middle East often last not as long as the wars they tend to end.

Akhundi touched on this too in his Monday interview: “Israel is certainly unhappy about the possibility of a deal and may try to obstruct an agreement through psychological warfare, targeted assassinations, and cyber-attacks,” he warned.

Former conservative MP Mahmood Abbaszadeh Meshkini echoed the urgency while calling for a more proactive strategy.

“Trump is not interested in starting a war with Iran,” Mashkini told Khabar Online, urging the decision-makers in Tehran to take the lead in shaping the agenda.

Like many conservatives who have jumped ship on talks, Meshkini backed the official line and even went as far to hint at the rift between the rulers and the ruled as a hindrance for Iran advancing its interests abroad.

Another conservative commentator Mohammad Mohajeri charted another territory previously unnavigable: concessions.

“Eventually, both sides might come to accept that some red lines are also open to negotiation,” he told the outlet Rouydad24 briefly—and somewhat daringly—before quickly qualifying his remarks, perhaps to guard against criticism for his plain speech.

“However, if the other side demands that enrichment in Iran be reduced to zero or that our peaceful nuclear activities be entirely shut down, that is certainly unacceptable,” he added.

Tehran’s official position has remained constant during negotiations with Washington: low levels of enrichment are non-negotiable. On the other side, however, the stance seems to have hardened as president Trump and others in his team talk about Iran’s nuclear program being dismantled altogether.

The apparent sense of urgency reflected in Iranian media this week may have a thing or two to do with this.