U.S. media claim that Iran has set out new conditions to solve the conflict with the U.S. But the new text it has published is just a repetition of clauses the U.S. had already signed on to.
On Saturday Iran published ‘new’ demands for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz:
[Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr] said the US should observe the six following conditions:
“1. Never, and in no language, threaten Iran or insult the sanctities of this nation.
2. Permanently end the war and aggression against Iran and Iran’s allies in Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen and Iraq.
3. Lift the naval blockade and withdraw its military forces (naval and air) from around Iran.
4. Pay in full, without any reduction, the damages caused to Iran by the two wars of aggression and imposition.
5. Lift the unjust and illegal sanctions against the Iranian nation.
6. Unconditionally release the blocked and stolen assets of the Iranian people.”
These demands seem to have confused U.S. observers. The Wall Street Journal claimed (archived) that these were somehow more harsh than those which had been previously issued:
[..] Iran insisted Saturday on its highest price yet for permitting the free flow of traffic in the waterway, seeking billions of dollars in U.S. payments, the removal of American troops from the region and an end of the U.S. naval blockade, among other things.
…
“Iran’s recent hardline demands for reopening the strait make it increasingly difficult for the president to manufacture a face-saving off-ramp from the conflict,” said Mona Yacoubian, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.
The WSJ author and his ‘expert’ are mistaken. There is nothing new in the Iranian demands. They are direct repetitions of clauses laid down in Memorandum of Understanding which the White House had negotiated and President Trump had publicly signed.
Point 1 of the MoU notes that the parties “undertake .. to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other” which is similar to point 1 of the ‘new’ conditions.
Point 1 of the MoU also had the parties “declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, …”. This is repeated, and spelled out in more detail, in point 2 of the new conditions.
Point 3 of the ‘new’ demands, the lifting of the blockade and withdrawal of U.S. forces, is equal to point 4 of the MoU:
.., the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days. … The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal.
Even Point 4 of the ‘new’ version, the demand for reparations, was already included in the MoU:
The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Likewise, point 5 and 6 of the ‘new’ demands are shorter repetitions of points 10 and 11 of the Trump signed MoU.
The differences between Iran’s newly published demands and the MoU are references in the later one to nuclear issues.
The U.S. had demanded to include those into the MoU and there is simply no point for Iran to include these U.S. conditions into its most recent version.
The only real difference between the MoU and the new conditions is the timing. The MoU set out to undertake the measures step by step along a defined timeline with each side responding to the others side’s fulfillment of previous clauses.
It was the U.S. which did not stick to the MoU but immediately breached its promises. As soon as he had signed the MoU Trump was back at threatening Iran thus breaking its point 1 condition. The U.S. then arranged for a separate agreement which extended Israel’s war and occupation of Lebanon instead of ending the war under the MoU’s conditions. It ignored Iran’s privilege under the MoU to “make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels” through the Strait of Hormuz by making separate arrangements with Oman.
The U.S. has demonstrated that it can not be trusted. No one can assumed that it will stick to any conditions of previous or new agreements at least when it comes to phased commitment. The U.S. is not trustworthy and will thus get no upfront credit.
That is why Iran is demanding the upfront fulfillment of any promise the U.S. has made. Only when those are fulfilled will Iran move to act on its own commitments.
Trump can easily solve the conflict around the Strait of Hormuz. He simply has to fulfill the commitments set out in the MoU he had already agreed to. He may not like that he will now have to do that upfront but that is just an obvious consequence of his own mistake of not sticking to it in the first place.
The only clause where Trump has real limits is the payment of reparations to Iran for the war damage the 20,000 or so U.S. strikes have caused. Trump would need Congressional agreement to pay out that money.
But the compromise here is obvious and simple. If the U.S. officially agrees that Iran can take tolls from ships crossing the Strait this could be seen as a payment in kind.
This might seem unfair to other countries which would have to pay the tolls but it is a reminder for them to become more active when the U.S. needs to be reigned in.