Négociation avec l'Iran : Trump peut-il tout perdre ?

Tonight, the world's attention is fixed on a five-star hotel in Islamabad, where American and Iranian delegations are engaged in direct negotiations—a first since 1979. The American team is led by JD Vance, while the Iranian side is headed by Foreign Minister Araghtchi, a seasoned negotiator who previously worked on the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal, and the Speaker of Parliament, Mohammad Ghalibaf. The high-level representation from both sides indicates the seriousness of these talks, despite numerous perceived insurmountable obstacles. Both parties have reasons to be at the negotiating table. Donald Trump faces a political stalemate, having failed to convert a military victory into political capital. He is also under pressure domestically, with midterm elections approaching in six or seven months where his party could lose control of Congress. High gas prices in the U.S. further compound his unpopularity, making a peace agreement crucial, though not at the cost of losing face. The Iranians, having endured heavy strikes and a war of attrition, seek the lifting of sanctions and leverage the control of the Strait of Hormuz, an unforeseen advantage. These negotiations are critical not only for the future of the truce and the Strait of Hormuz, which impacts global economic life, but also for regional stability, including a potential truce in Lebanon. The future of JD Vance, the American Vice President, is also at stake; a successful negotiation could significantly boost his prospects as a successor to Trump. Behind the scenes, China has played a role, pushing Iran to the negotiating table and accumulating influence as the U.S. grapples with the situation. Donald Trump, despite not being in Islamabad, is actively trying to control the narrative. He claims his armada has unprecedented firepower and promises total annihilation to Iran, while simultaneously asserting he is single-handedly unblocking the Strait of Hormuz and that American ships have already passed through. This dual message complicates Vance's negotiating position, as he must navigate a president who constantly makes public pronouncements. Trump's initial objectives for the conflict, such as regime change in Iran, were not achieved, forcing him to seek a triumphant narrative for domestic political gain. The Iranians' demands reflect a country that believes it has overcome its adversary, presenting a "shopping list" of a victor. Their terms include the lifting of all American sanctions, continued uranium enrichment, and the unblocking of Iranian assets. They perceive themselves as being in a strong negotiating position because they have "won" by not losing against a superior military force and have forced an end to hostilities. This makes it challenging to bring them back to terms that would be acceptable to Trump, particularly regarding their nuclear program and influence in the region. Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu is a notable absentee from these talks. The New York Times reported on a February 11 meeting where Netanyahu urged the U.S. to strike Iran, a proposal rejected by previous presidents but accepted by Trump. This highlights Trump's consistent hardline stance on the Iranian nuclear program, which he deemed too weak in the 2015 agreement. Netanyahu's government saw the conflict as an opportunity to address proxies threatening Israel, especially after October 7, 2023. However, the report also suggests that Netanyahu might have misled Trump or been misinformed, especially regarding the possibility of a popular uprising in Iran. Netanyahu, facing his own political pressures and upcoming elections, is seen as willing to prolong the conflict to appear as the protector of Israelis. The recent Israeli attacks in Lebanon, causing significant civilian casualties, have strained relations between Trump and Netanyahu, with American officials reportedly expressing dismay. JD Vance, initially an opponent of the war, has been chosen by Trump to lead the negotiations. This decision is seen by some as a trap set by Trump, who enjoys pitting his proteges against each other. If Vance succeeds, Trump takes the credit; if he fails, Vance takes the blame. However, Vance's role also positions him favorably for future presidential ambitions, especially if he can secure peace while maintaining support from the MAGA coalition, which includes voices critical of the Iran offensive as being orchestrated by Israel. The Iranians specifically requested Vance, recognizing his initial opposition to military action, which lends him credibility. The American negotiating team, composed of individuals like Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, is seen as less experienced than their Iranian counterparts. The Iranians, masters of negotiation with a longer temporal perspective, are expected to prolong the talks, potentially waiting out Trump's presidency, as they have done in the past. Even a promise of a "paused" nuclear program from Iran is viewed with skepticism, as it may not signify a genuine long-term commitment. Concerns about potential insider trading have also emerged. Reports indicate that anonymous accounts made profitable trades on oil futures just before Trump announced promising discussions with Iran. Similar patterns have been observed before other Trump announcements. Democrats are calling for an investigation into these possible insider trading activities, especially given the involvement of Trump's son in a betting company and Pete Hegseth's alleged investments in armaments before the strikes. This raises serious questions about conflicts of interest within the administration, with critics arguing that the Republican-controlled Congress has failed in its oversight role. The current state of affairs is widely seen as worse than before the war. The negotiations, by legitimizing the current Iranian regime, are considered a failure for the Iranian population, who had hoped for regime change. The regime, although partially decapitated, has regenerated with even more hardline elements, particularly the Revolutionary Guards. The population is viewed as a "variable of adjustment," with Trump prioritizing an interlocutor over regime change or the welfare of the Iranian people. Despite the complexities, an agreement is not entirely ruled out, even with the hardliners, given their strong desire for sanctions relief. However, the Iranians, known for their chess-like strategic thinking, might demand a "gambit"—sacrificing a significant piece to save the core, such as returning 440 kg of uranium. The true red line for the U.S. remains the nuclear issue, and a successful outcome would involve a long-term monitoring agreement. However, given the Iranians' negotiating prowess and Trump's short-term political pressures, many doubt a truly "good" or lasting agreement can be achieved, and the possibility of renewed conflict remains high due to the irrationality and incompetence involved.