“The most important aspect of having Vance in the talks is simply to convince the Iranians that it’s not just another setup — that it’s not just stalling for another attack by the U.S. on Iran, which is what happened the other two times when it was just Witkoff and Kushner,” said Rosemary Kelanic, director of the Middle East Program at Defense Priorities, a think tank advocating for restraint.
If the person leading the U.S. talks “hasn’t gone on the record saying this war is a fantastic, great thing,” she continued, “that potentially raises the credibility of the U.S. being serious about a deal.”
Kelanic predicted the likelihood of talks going poorly being “greater than 50 percent.” But she said solidifying the ceasefire could be a positive outcome as would a start on talks about what each side must do to de-escalate, such as the U.S. drawing down some forces in the region, and Iran further opening the Strait of Hormuz.
“One of the mistakes behind this entire process since Trump has assumed office is the belief that we can get this done immediately, that there needs to be dramatic developments every time there’s a sit-down at a table with a negotiator. And that’s just not how it goes,” Kelanic said.
“Negotiations are boring—they’re supposed to be boring. Just sending Vance is not going to magically restore U.S. credibility in the eyes of Iran. It’s half of a baby step, at best.”
Featuring
