Following the rrecent developments in the region and continuation of challanges between Iran and the US in the Persian Gulf region and Strait of Hormuz, 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 shed more light on the developments.
Following is the full text of the interview:
Some news sources have expressed optimism about reaching a one-page agreement that would pave the way for negotiations on a comprehensive deal. What is your assessment?
Indeed, it seems that it is the most logical and likely development. This incremental approach was already envisaged even before the 12-day war. Now the level of tensions and risk of deadly escalation makes it more necessary.
There is growing optimism about a preliminary agreement, despite the fact that clashes have occurred in the Strait of Hormuz between Iran and the United States in recent days. Could these clashes jeopardize diplomacy?
Yes, of course, there is always a risk of escalation that could lead to an uncontrolled situation and counter-productive consequences. Because the stakes are so high, it would be in the interest of each side to exercise utmost restraint and give priority to a diplomatic solution.
Given recent developments, Iran seeks to maintain control over the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic asset. What is your assessment of this matter?
Iran realized after the war launched by the US and Israel that it had, in addition to its internal resilience, a major asset given by geography which it could use to exercise leverage and pressure. However, it is like a double-edged sword because the 20 percent of world oil that transit through the strait also include Iranian oil, which makes Tehran dependent on an open strait. Of course, in a negotiation with the US, Iran will not abandon this asset, but it should rather work towards a multilateral or regional solution that would allow both benefits for Iran and freedom of transit in accordance with international law.
Considering the current developments, which scenario do you find most likely: continuation of the status quo, containment of conflict and further war, or an agreement?
It is clear that both sides have an interest in a cessation of hostilities that affect both of them and the whole world economy. On the other hand, the sides are in a paradoxical situation: they want any solution to appear as a victory but what they see as total victory is inacceptable to the other side. The negotiators and the "spin doctors" will need to deploy lots of efforts to convince public opinion that a return to the previous status quo is a victory.
It is said that regarding Iran's nuclear program, there is a possibility of suspending enrichment, and after a period that is not yet specified, Iran would be allowed to enrich below 3.67 percent. Regarding enriched stockpiles, they might be stored in countries such as China or Russia. If these points are true, how much could they help resolve these issues?
It just demonstrates how the JCPOA was a reasonable and effective solution allowing Iran to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes but not nuclear weapons. This would be a return to normality, sanity, and multilateralism trashed by Trump's withdrawal from the 2025 agreement. However, to make a new agreement credible, Iran should explain transparently what it needs to enrich uranium for since the current and potentially future nuclear power plants built by Russia will operate with nuclear fuel supplied and reprocessed by Russia.
