TABNAK reached out to Professor Paul Pillar former CIA intelligence analyst to shed more light on on the recent developments around the US-Israeli aggression on Iran.
Here is the full text of the interview:
Abbas Araghchi, Iran's Foreign Minister, went to Pakistan carrying Iran's response to America. This trip comes as U.S president Donald Trump has extended an indefinite ceasefire. What is your assessment of this trip, and could it pave the way for an agreement?
Now Trump has called off the prospective trip to Pakistan by the U.S. envoys, so it appears there will be no U.S.-Iranian meeting for the time being. Both sides are hoping to outlast the other side in tolerating economic pain from having no agreement. Iran is saying that Araghchi's trip is about bilateral consultations with the Pakistanis. There is plenty to talk about, given Pakistan's role as the principal mediator in this conflict, but it now seems that is all that he will be doing in Islamabad.
It seems this trip could set the stage for a meeting between senior Iranian and American officials if an initial agreement is reached. If an agreement is reached, would it be a framework for achieving a comprehensive deal?
A brief and vague framework, leaving many issues for future negotiation, is more likely than a comprehensive deal. Trump is too anxious to get out of this mess for him to support the kind of sustained negotiations that would be necessary to come to a new agreement on nuclear matters, even without considering other issues.
Araghchi will also travel to Oman and Russia after this trip. What is the purpose of these two visits?
Both countries could play roles in the substance of some future agreement with the United States. Oman is necessarily a player in any arrangement involving passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Russia might be part of an agreement on nuclear issues, such as by accepting enriched uranium from Iran. And then there is the Iran-Russia military supply relationship to talk about.
Some Israeli sources claim that if no agreement is reached, the United States might launch another intense and short-term war against Iran and end it unilaterally. The approach of the aircraft carrier 'George H.W. Bush' to the area covered by CENTCOM and other US military actions in the region has fueled this speculation. Is this a strategy for Trump to declare victory in the war?
This is a possibility. Trump may feel the need to make such a parting shot to make more plausible a claim that he has "won" the war by destroying much of Iran's military capability.
The United States has not achieved its pre-war declared objectives, such as destroying Iran's missile program, destroying Iran's nuclear program, and “regime change.” This means it has become clear that these objectives are not achievable for the United States through a military campaign. To what extent does this convince Trump to refrain from another attack and look more seriously at diplomacy?
Unfortunately, Trump has never devoted himself to diplomacy with the seriousness to make it effective. A "no war, but no agreement" scenario in which all U.S. sanctions against Iran remain in place is one possible way this war will end. The way this war has gone will, however, probably discourage Trump from more use of military force, against Iran or against anyone else. That he probably saw the military operation against Venezuela as an easy success probably was part of what led him to launch war against Iran, but now his view of such military operations is bound to change.
