Washington, Aug. 16 (SANA) Internal divisions and competing centers of power in Tehran have complicated US-Iran negotiations, making it difficult for Washington to determine who has the authority to finalize an agreement, Axios reported.
The difficulties prompted the Trump administration to seek a back channel to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps after doubts emerged over whether official Iranian negotiators were authorized to make final decisions, the US news site reported. Axios said US negotiators encountered the problem in mid-May.
Back channel through Erbil
The administration turned to Iraqi Kurdistan Region President Nechirvan Barzani, who was seen as having relationships with officials in both Washington and Tehran, to establish contact with the Revolutionary Guard’s leadership, Axios reported, citing three sources familiar with the contacts.
The administration asked Barzani to assess the Guard’s position on proposals being discussed by Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.
Barzani later contacted Revolutionary Guard Commander Ahmad Vahidi, who told the US side that the Guard’s leadership supported continuing negotiations to resolve the crisis through dialogue, according to Axios.
Secret Erbil meeting scrapped
The administration subsequently proposed secret talks between US and Iranian officials in Erbil, but the meeting did not take place because of Iranian concerns over the security of participants and the possibility of targeted attacks, Axios reported.
An interim agreement was reached during that period but quickly unraveled. Qatar and Pakistan continued to relay messages between the two sides, but the contacts produced no tangible progress, according to Axios.
Le Monde analysis
The developments followed an analysis in France’s Le Monde, in which historian Jean-Pierre Filiu said divisions within Iran’s leadership continued to affect negotiations. Le Monde described the Revolutionary Guards as exerting influence over the president and his negotiators beyond military affairs.
Filiu said Iran’s political system, with overlapping authority between the Supreme Leader and the presidency, had historically created differences among decision-making centers. He added that the Guards’ expanding influence had made it more difficult to determine who could make final decisions on foreign policy.
The analysis also said hard-line factions opposed to dialogue remained influential, while Vahidi appeared to be seeking additional concessions from Washington.
Indirect contacts through regional mediators remain stalled, with no progress reported on efforts to revive the interim agreement reached in June and establish a timetable for its implementation, according to Reuters, citing a senior Iranian source.
The dispute therefore involves not only differences between Washington and Tehran but also the lack of a unified Iranian position and uncertainty over who can approve any future agreement.
Kh.A / Mzn
