For the past two weeks, I have been bombarded by questions from colleagues and "experts" from across the globe wondering how to assess the current round of talks between Tehran and the Trump administration in Washington.
The typical question is: what is going on?
Judging by comments and leaks from the Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi and President Donald Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff -- although problems remain -- things are going smoothly. Trump himself keeps saying that he expects "a good agreement" without spelling out what that means.
Tehran pundits muse about an historic turnaround that would see the US investing over a trillion dollars in Iran while the regime is given the green light to continue merrily enriching the uranium it does not need. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian goes further by talking about "rebuilding the whole region in peace and with prosperity for all."
The fact, however, is that so far nothing has happened. The two sides have not fielded their full teams and seem unable to establish a clear agenda for talks. Nor are they in agreement about how long the talks should last. Trump says he had given the "Supreme Guide" in Tehran two months to make a deal or else, a time span to coincide with the president's first 100 days in office, which has already come and gone.
Though I doubt that he is in the know, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot says the mullahs have until summer to do what is required or, although he doesn't say it in these words, the roof will fall on their heads.
More surprisingly, the global commentariat seems persuaded that the Araqchi-Witkoff tandem are on course to do what their predecessors, in almost half a century of talks between Iran and the "Great Satan," failed to do.
At first glance, such optimism might appear at least mildly plausible. The biggest sign is Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's open intervention to endorse the talks and silence its critics.
He has even re-written parts of religious history to claim that making "temporary peace" with a foe is not only permissible but actually commendable.
Nevertheless, much of the current "feel-good" message transmitted from Tehran and Washington may be due to what pre-Freudian psychologists called the "Coué Method," which suggests positive imagination as therapy.
According to Émile Coué de la Châtaigneraie, who developed the method in the 19th century, "thinking that things are going the way you want is halfway to having that actually happen."
Anyone who has followed the Tehran-Washington "talks" saga for almost half a century would know that we are faced with a typical Alphonse and Gaston situation, in which one side refuses to act until the other side has acted first.
Trump wants Iran to dismantle its nuclear program, after which the US would lift sanctions.
Alphonse says: I will do what you want after you have done what I want. But if I get what I want, why should I give what you want when I always maintained that you had no right to ask me to do what you want.
For decades, Tehran has said it has no plan for developing a nuclear weapon and has no intention of doing so in the future. The US under President Barack Obama briefly accepted that, and did all he could to get Iran off the hook. President Trump didn't buy that bundle and scrapped the Obama "nuclear deal".
This is why opponents in Tehran of talks with the US are talking about "guarantees" that if Iran agrees terms with the US, the "Great Satan" should guarantee that another administration in Washington would not scrap the deal.
In the past two weeks, a number of retired Iranian diplomats have penned op-eds or written columns to demand "iron-clad guarantees". Former US Secretary of State John Kerry, an active supporter of a deal with Tehran, has tried to answer that concern by suggesting that the putative deal be ratified by the Congress as a treaty, something that he and Obama failed to do when in charge.
Barrot had hinted at furnishing such a guarantee in the form of yet another resolution by the United Nations Security Council.
What Kerry, Barrot and the retired Iranian diplomats ignore is the principle of sovereignty, under which no sitting administration or parliament could commit ad aeternam all future administrations and parliaments in a democracy to any agreement.
An international contract or treaty isn't the same as a private one concluded under the jurisdiction of a state, where courts could impose compliance through domestic jurisprudence.
In other words, even if Trump gives the guarantee that Iran wants, and even if the US Congress passes it as a treaty, the principle known as rebus sic stantibus could always be applied "where there has been a fundamental change of circumstances, a party may withdraw from or terminate a treaty."
There is, of course, one non-judicial way to make sure a deal sticks: Remove the root causes of enmity. For example, let's start by releasing the US hostages and make sure that no further hostages are taken during what remains of Trump's term.
Next, give up the temptation to revive Hamas, Hezbollah and half a dozen Iraqi groups through sneaky schemes while smuggling arms to what is left of the Houthis. Also, end the burning of flags, attacks on embassies and calls for this or that nation to be "wiped off the map". And if you don't mean to attack targets as far as Europe, stop developing long-range missiles.
Then join the rest of the world in the Financial Action Task Force accords against money laundering and funding terrorism. Iran is part of a blacklisted trio that includes North Korea and Myanmar.
The so-called "uranium enrichment" issue is a diversion.
If Iran expects to be treated differently, it should become different, after which it could spend fortunes on enriching the uranium it has no use for.
Amir Taheri was the executive editor-in-chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran from 1972 to 1979. He has worked at or written for innumerable publications, published eleven books, and has been a columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat since 1987.
Gatestone Institute would like to thank the author for his kind permission to reprint this article in slightly different form from Asharq Al-Awsat. He graciously serves as Chairman of Gatestone Europe.
