fbpx

Comment and Opinion

Washington Institute for Near East Policy: Rouhani’s Negotiating Strategy: Divide and Isolate, by Steven Ditto

[ssba]

In August, the Iranian government released a document highlighting the focus of its nuclear negotiating strategy: sidelining the United States by isolating it from the other members of the P5+1 (Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China). The emergence of this strategy — explicitly articulated by President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, and in line with the former’s extensive writings — is at odds with Tehran’s assurances of a “win-win” endgame in resolving the nuclear issue.

ZARIF: “BREAK THE COORDINATION OF MAJOR POWERS”

On August 7, four days after the new president’s inauguration, Zarif released the “Program for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for a Rouhani Government” to Iranian media outlets. Shortly thereafter, the document appeared on theĀ Foreign Ministry website.

In it, Zarif enumerated the ministry’s “short-medium-term operational strategy” for nuclear negotiations, including a pledge to “change the global security environment” by “breaking the coordination of major powers and neutralizing the Zionist-American efforts to build an international consensus against Iran.” He reiterated this point two more times, noting that “global conditions” called for a strategy to “neutralize the leverage of America and the Zionist regime with countries and multilateral institutions vis-a-vis Iran.”

To be sure, the document does contain some encouraging language. Along with specifying plans to “normalize and improve relations” with neighboring countries and “rebuild relations with traditional partners in Europe and Asia,” Zarif speaks of a “gradual decrease in potential antagonism with America and turning to positive capabilities.” He also notes that “instead of letting the United States initiate,” Iran should take “the initiative on all aspects of bilateral relations.” But normalization of ties with America is not mentioned, and the intentions behind these seemingly positive initiatives are questionable given the troubling language in other parts of the document.

Read more at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.