If Iran Does Not Accept Netanyahu’s Four Conditions, What Will Happen?

On the eve of Iran-US negotiations in Geneva, Netanyahu announced four Israeli conditions for any agreement with Iran, including the complete dismantling of nuclear infrastructure and limiting missile range to 300 kilometers. But will Iran accept such conditions?

Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, on the eve of the second round of Iran-US talks in Geneva, announced four Israeli conditions for any agreement with Iran: complete removal of enriched uranium, complete dismantling of nuclear infrastructure, limiting missile range to 300 kilometers, and ending support for “proxies.”

Iranian officials immediately responded with a “less tense” tone compared to the past, speaking of “flexibility in the nuclear program in exchange for lifting sanctions” and even discussed negotiations over certain economic incentives for America.

Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s Foreign Minister, before his trip to Geneva, emphasized that “Iran’s missile capability is a red line for national security” and will not be negotiated.

Iranian officials consider uranium enrichment their right and will not agree to complete dismantling of the nuclear program or transferring enriched uranium to a third country.

Majid Takht-Ravanchi, Deputy Foreign Minister, while emphasizing the Islamic Republic’s readiness for flexibility in the nuclear program in exchange for lifting sanctions, considered diluting highly enriched uranium as an example of such flexibility, but stressed that Tehran will never accept zero enrichment.

He also said that Israel’s direct entry into the negotiating space could create new political and diplomatic challenges, especially given that the talks are at a sensitive stage.

“If Iran Accepts Israel’s Conditions, Sanctions Will Still Remain”

But the main question is whether Iran will accept the conditions of Israel and America, and if not, what will happen?

Farzaneh Roostaye, an analyst of Iran and Middle East affairs, believes “Iran’s crisis” is far too complex to be easily resolved and can even be considered largely “insoluble.”

According to this expert, even if the Islamic Republic accepts Netanyahu’s conditions, it will still face the barrier of sanctions, because not all sanctions are under the control of the US President, and some are under Congressional oversight and lifting them will be time-consuming.

Roostaye considers the realization of Netanyahu’s four conditions virtually impossible and emphasizes that the Islamic Republic will not accept them due to the consequences of such acceptance, because accepting these conditions could even lead to the end of the system. In his view, resolving the nuclear, missile, and proxy crises is only possible with a fundamental change in political structure and “regime change.”

Roostaye also describes the economic situation as critical, saying that declining oil revenues and financial pressures have put the government in a difficult position.

According to this expert, negotiations, rather than leading to a lasting agreement, could be an attempt to buy time against serious military threats. He suggests that if diplomacy fails, America and Israel could resort to limited strikes lasting several days or weeks, an action that could also change Iran’s internal equations.

Alireza Ordibilia: Iran is Not Seeking Immediate Reconciliation

Alireza Ordibilia, political analyst and manager of the analytical website “Tribune,” believes evidence shows that the Islamic Republic is not seeking immediate reconciliation under current conditions.

According to this expert, the ruling establishment’s think tank estimates that there is capacity to withstand another joint blow from America and Israel, and if reconciliation is to occur, the preference is that it happen after demonstrating the ability to manage the crisis and showing deterrent power, including striking the opposing side’s interests.

Regarding the consequences of a possible American and Israeli attack on the Islamic Republic, he says that if the goal is solely regime change, such a scenario is only conceivable under very special circumstances, including America’s readiness to bear heavy economic and human costs and even sending ground forces.

But if the goal is to build democracy, he believes the answer is negative, because Iranian society is neither post-World War II Japan nor Germany of that era.

According to Ordibilia, the country’s infrastructure has not been completely rebuilt even after the Iran-Iraq War, and any extensive military intervention could cause more serious damage.

He emphasizes that even in a transition scenario without war, the country’s reconstruction requires substantial capital and time, let alone a situation where the destruction of infrastructure, insecurity, and new waves of migration would push the prospect of democracy further away.

Source: Deutsche Welle