After the failiure of the talks between Iran and the US mediatted by Pakistan in Islamabad due to washington's excessive demands,US President Donald Trump warned on Sunday that the US Navy would start blockading the Strait of Hormuz and would also interdict every vessel in international waters that had paid a toll to Iran.
To know more about the issue and the ongoing developments, TABNAK reached out to Marc Finaud a senior advisor and associate fellow at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP) and former French Foreign Ministry spoksman to talk recent US military buildup in the region and its threats against Iran.
Here is the full text of the interview:
The Iran-U.S. negotiations, mediated by Pakistan, have failed. However, both sides have left the door open for possible future talks. The most significant points of disagreement have been the issues of zero enrichment and the Strait of Hormuz. In your opinion, how likely is restarting negotiations and progress on these two points of disagreement?
It is difficult to know at this stage. The positions of each side seemed very distant if not totally incompatible at the start of the talks. On the nuclear file, it can be hoped that discreet expert discussions could take place, perhaps with the help of Pakistan, Oman and/or the IAEA. Zero enrichment as such is known to be unacceptable to Iran but face-saving devices such as long-term freeze and dilution of the 400 kg of 60% HEU could be acceptable to the US provided there is a strong and verifiable commitment by Iran not to develop a nuclear weapon. On the Strait of Hormuz, there should be multilateral discussions involving the key users such as China, Pakistan, and the [P]GCC countries, with full respect for freedom of circulation according to international law. As announced, European navies could monitor the Strait after a ceasefire or a peace agreement together with regional states.
Donald Trump, the President of the United States, today announced a naval blockade of Iranian ports. Will this action lead to opening of the Strait of Hormuz, or might he, if the blockade fails, carry out attacks on Iran's power plants?
It is a short-sighted and illogical move: to block the Strait in order to open it. In international law, naval blockade is an act of war, which can only lead to escalation of violence and counter-productive losses and global impact. The only reasonable and effective solution can be achieved not by military pressure but by negotiation aiming at mutually beneficial results.
It is said that mediators are trying to maintain the existing ceasefire and encourage both sides to begin new negotiations. Could the naval blockade of Iran and Iran's possible reaction disrupt this process?
It is in the interest of all parties to maintain a ceasefire to lead to de-escalation and pave the way to a negotiated solution. Iran has demonstrated that, despite destructions caused by the US and Israeli strikes, it has maintained the capacity to retaliate against targets in the region. This should be an incentive for avoiding new strikes against Iran.
It seems that the goals Trump sought through attacking Iran have not been achieved. The regime has not been changed, no enriched uranium has been obtained, and Iran's missile capability has not been destroyed. This means that a military campaign is incapable of achieving these goals. Do you think the lessons learned from the war so far will further encourage Trump toward a political solution, or toward continuing possible attacks—this time on Iran's power plants?
It is true that continuation of the war or renewed strikes against Iran that would maintain instability and contribute to oil price increase is not in Trump's interest. His political base is becoming more and more reluctant to support such an approach. However, historically, the United States has never learned lessons from lost wars (in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq) and the Trump administration is still under the strong influence of the Israeli Prime Minister that has been decisive in this military adventure. The main question is now whether the US President can resist this pressure and give diplomacy a real chance.
