“Show and diplomacy are opposite things”

The US is extending the truce, but Iran refuses to negotiate - how is this even possible? And who has a stronger position? Former diplomat Boris Bondarev answers

Donald Trump has extended the truce with Iran for the second time, this time until April 26. Iran, in turn, said that the US initiative “does not make any sense” and refused to negotiate while the US continues to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. Nevertheless, the second round of negotiations in Islamabad may still take place - today it became known that Iran has sent a foreign minister to Pakistan, where negotiations with the United States are taking place. Meduza spoke with former Russian Foreign Ministry employee Boris Bondarev about the peculiarities and paradoxes of these negotiations, as well as whether they have a chance of success.

— How do you assess the negotiations between Iran and the United States? Did anything surprise you?

— I don’t very clearly understand in what form they took place . For example, were these negotiations one-on-one or were Pakistani representatives sitting nearby? If there were direct negotiations between Iran and the United States, then this is a plus, because there have not been such contacts for a long time . On the other hand, the first round did not lead to anything, and the second was completely canceled.

Both sides approached the negotiations very radically, with very exaggerated demands that were inadequate for the situation and the balance of power. Now a third aircraft carrier is heading there, and Trump is making contradictory statements. Therefore, it is quite difficult for Iranians to navigate and understand what they want from them. But this is not a clever policy on the American side to confuse the enemy. It's just Trump, who has one thing in the morning and another in the evening. And this, of course, is evidence of unprofessionalism.

We can say that on the diplomatic track Iran is compensating for its military weakness in comparison with American military power. Militarily, the United States is head and shoulders above it, but despite this, Tehran is trying to outplay the Americans and neutralize this advantage. Iran feels much freer in negotiations because the United States is represented by confident, but completely unprofessional and unprepared people like Steve Witkoff . The Iranian side, at the same time, is represented by experienced professional diplomats , negotiators who understand what they want.

— Trump, at the height of hostilities, declared that Iran “no longer has” any air defense, navy, or leadership and threatened to “destruct an entire nation.” Nevertheless, the countries resumed direct contacts. How does such public rhetoric affect what happens behind closed doors?

— If public rhetoric is not consistent with what is happening in the negotiations, then it has a bad effect. Imagine that you come to negotiations, discuss issues, the other side says that they are ready to take into account your interests and are determined to work in a business direction. And suddenly their boss says that he has sent aircraft carriers, that everyone will be destroyed and everyone will be bombed. And even if they tell you that this is a game for the public, you cannot be sure of it. Perhaps the people sitting in front of you are just stalling for time.

If Vance speaks conciliatoryly and tried to play an adequate person, and Trump simultaneously threatens heavenly punishments and makes wild statements, then how can Iranians trust the other side?

If negotiations are being conducted on sensitive issues such as a peace settlement or a pause in hostilities, one must be careful in public rhetoric. You need to say “negotiations are underway, they are not going well, we are trying to find common ground” or say nothing at all. The diplomats will talk, come back and tell everything. This is what responsible politicians do, but this does not apply to Trump; he himself undermines his own peace initiatives.

— American conditions seem incompatible with what Iran is ready to discuss. In such a situation, how do meaningful negotiations proceed? Is it possible to agree on something given such polar positions?

— If the parties have strongly divided positions and there are issues on which they do not agree, then they usually try to find less significant issues on which the process can be carried out. For example, Iran says that its nuclear program is their sacred right. This means that during negotiations there is no need to put pressure on this from the very beginning. First agree on the regime for passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

When the first progress is made, an atmosphere of constructive interaction will appear, the parties will begin to look at each other better, they will see that everyone is ready to compromise and is interested in dialogue. This is how trust is built. Then you can systematically move on to more serious issues.

For example, the negotiations that lasted several years and ended in 2015 with the adoption of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action are an example of complex multilateral work in just such small steps. And in the end we managed to achieve tangible results. It is difficult to remember the loud statements that surrounded this process, because everything was done calmly and quietly. Obama didn't say he would leave nothing behind from Iran. It may not have been a perfect agreement, but it worked until Trump pulled out.

Diplomacy, especially conflict resolution, is difficult and often very exhausting work, when you have to sit for a long time and sometimes listen to all sorts of nonsense. All this can be exhausting and does not promise quick results. And Trump needs new bright reasons, so he rushed to Iran. Perhaps he will soon forget about him and move on to Cuba.

Show and diplomacy are opposite things. They always negotiate in silence, without prying eyes and ears.

— Trump has publicly announced Iran’s consent several times: both to negotiations and to the renunciation of nuclear weapons. Tehran directly denied this. Is this his conscious strategy?

“I haven’t believed for a long time that Trump has a strategy.” He just enjoys creating a show every hour. It seems to me that they might have brought him a telegram according to which, under certain circumstances, Iran might consider a nuclear deal. Usually such things are written in a veiled manner. And Trump immediately responded: “Iran is ready to abandon its nuclear program.”

Trump is not prepared in diplomacy, politics, or international relations. He sees everything as a transaction and tries to act like a businessman. And in business, you can often promote something or put pressure on your partners. In interstate relations this does not always work and is sometimes counterproductive.

Therefore, if Trump wants to make progress with Iran, then first of all he needs not to speak out on this topic at all, and appoint specialists from the State Department who will calmly travel to Islamabad and negotiate. But this runs counter to Trump's approach.

— The Trump administration has more than once named specific deadlines by which Iran should open the Strait of Hormuz. No deadline has been met yet. Does this make any sense?

— If you set a deadline, it means you put pressure on the opposite side, set conditions under which it must meet. We are no longer talking about an equal dialogue, because the deadline is a threat. And if the other side does not meet you halfway, then you must carry out this threat.

If your threats are not carried out, it turns out that they mean nothing. You just pretend that you are so big and strong, but in reality you are afraid of aggravation. This means that the opponent has leverage, and now he can aggravate the situation both through rhetoric and military means. Putin does this to Ukraine and the West. As soon as the West asks not to escalate the situation, Putin raises the stakes and talks about Oreshnik.

So it is here. Iran did not comply with the demands, which means that the American side must back up its threats with something, but the United States, apparently, is not very ready for this. Iran is mostly an agricultural country; fields cannot be bombed; the country will not die of hunger. In this regard, you can bomb it for a long time, but this will have little effect; the deployment of troops is needed here. The Americans are not ready for this.

One step forward, two steps back [on the US side] is an indicator that Trump has no understanding of what he wants from this war. Therefore, Iranians are constantly wondering what exactly the Americans mean. Ultimately, this is a problem for the US, which is losing its reputation, and a problem for Iran, which has to figure out what the US wants. And also a problem for the entire region, which does not understand what will happen next.

— Several mediators are involved in the negotiations: Oman, Qatar, Egypt, Türkiye, Pakistan. Can their excess interfere with the process?

— As a rule, mediators ease the situation, especially if there have been no direct contacts between the parties for many years and they have strong disagreements. Countries that do not have direct diplomatic relations always conduct their first meetings through intermediaries. Then you can make two-way contact.

Mediation is when a third party actively participates in the negotiations and prepares a draft final agreement that the parties try to accept. In this regard, only Pakistan now resembles a classic mediator.

“Now the side that was bombed is refusing the truce, and the side that was bombing is extending it. How can this be explained from the point of view of negotiation logic?

— I repeat that on the diplomatic track the Iranians look stronger, they have a more consistent and tough position. They show a willingness to make sacrifices, serious steps and escalation. The United States demonstrates only chaotic gestures: it either calls on Iran to unblock the strait, then blocks it itself, or declares that the parties have agreed to negotiate, but at the same time continue the blockade.

A blockade is generally an act of war. What kind of truce can we talk about if the blockade continues? During the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the US blockaded Cuba, they called it a “quarantine” to portray it as a precaution rather than an act of war. Then they understood that they needed to handle public rhetoric carefully.

Now the Americans say they agree to a truce, but continue military operations. Of course, Iran behaves accordingly. In their situation, you need to show yourself as strong and decisive, undefeated as possible. If they give up, everyone will think that there is an internal split in the country and an uprising will soon begin.

Interviewed by Mikita Kuczynski