TABNAK reached out to Professor Paul Pillar former CIA intelligence analyst to shed more light on on the recent developments around the possible Iran-US agreement mediated by Pakistan.
Following is the full text of the interview:
There is some optimism about a potential preliminary agreement between Iran and the United States. Notably, both the American and Iranian sides have expressed optimism about it. What is your assessment of this situation?
This time it does appear that some sort of preliminary agreement or understanding will soon be announced. Besides the sheer number of suggestions to that effect from both sides, one indication is that Trump made a social media post to that effect that used normal language and was not filled with his usual threats and bombast. The understanding to be announced probably will provide for a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, some minimal financial relief at least in the form of release of some frozen assets, possibly some partial move by Iran on the nuclear issue such as a commitment to suspend enrichment of uranium for a period, extension of the ceasefire for another 30 days, and a commitment by both sides to negotiate further on outstanding issues, including the nuclear issue. So it can be described as a sort of expanded ceasefire. The political and economic challenges facing Trump gave him a strong incentive to end rather than resume the war, even if it meant kicking most of the substantive issues down the road for further negotiation. And certainly the economic pain Iran is feeling gives the Iranian regime incentive to do something that would move in the direction of economic relief.
In recent days, Arab leaders and Turkish officials have spoken with Trump regarding an agreement with Iran and have emphasized the necessity of reaching a deal. Do these contacts have an impact on Trump's approach toward whether to reach an agreement or not?
Such foreign contacts probably helped tip the balance of Trump's thinking in favor of ending the war. At least as important to him will be that he is able to say, in defending his move to skeptical domestic audiences, that he has most of the region on his side in ending the war.
Some speak of disagreements between Israel and the United States regarding an agreement with Iran. Another argument rejects this disagreement, considering it superficial. Do you think this disagreement is serious?
It definitely is serious. The Israeli government still opposes any diplomacy with Iran, especially diplomacy that gives Iran any relief from economic and military pressures and especially diplomacy that involves Israel's patron, the United States. The Israeli government will do what it can to sabotage both a preliminary agreement and any more complete agreement that emerges from further negotiation. Netanyahu will have to be careful about challenging Trump too openly on this, because Netanyahu faces political difficulties at home and Trump is more popular than Netanyahu is within Israel. But we certainly have not heard the last from Israel when it comes to stubbornly opposing any agreements with Iran.
Figures such as Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State during Trump's first term, have stated that the agreement the US will reach with Iran resembles the Obama administration's deal. He has touched on Trump's Achilles' heel, which was met with a strong reaction from the White House. Accordingly, if an agreement is signed with Iran, how will the hardliners in the US, particularly Republicans like Lindsey Graham, confront Trump?
Trump will find ways to argue that he has accomplished more than Obama did, such as by pointing out how much damage the war did to Iran's military capabilities, and saying that this means Trump was negotiating from more of a position of strength than Obama was. Many and perhaps most of his followers in his political base will accept such arguments, just as they routinely accept almost anything else he says. As for what hardliners such as Graham might do, right now it is impossible to separate the Iran issue from other things that are bothering congressional Republicans. These include Trump's opposing some sitting Republican members of Congress in primary elections, and a slush money scheme for making payments to pro-Trump convicted criminals that is so outrageous that it is causing problems for Republicans and not just Democrats. Because of this mixture of factors, it is just in the last couple of weeks that we have seen some more signs of independence from Republican members of Congress. A preliminary memorandum of understanding with Iran probably would not be put to a vote in Congress, and the hardliners there cannot force Trump to resume the war. They might express their displeasure by voting against some other legislation that the administration wants.
