Why Does Iran Deny the Iran-U.S. "Temporary Agreement"? Analysis of the U.S.-Iran Situation by Experts

Previously, an anonymous U.S. official released information indicating that the U.S. could reach a "temporary agreement" with Iran. On the 23rd, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson officially denied this claim. So what does this so-called "temporary agreement" entail? Why did Iran deny it?

What is the so-called U.S.-Iran "temporary agreement" and why did Iran deny it?

Professor Niu Xinchun from Ningxia University’s Institute of China-Arab States Studies: The core content of the so-called "temporary agreement" is that Iran would temporarily halt all nuclear activities in exchange for the U.S. lifting economic sanctions and military threats against Iran. Iran retains the legal right to engage in civilian nuclear activities as a sovereign state, but it promises to temporarily refrain from exercising this right and to stop all nuclear activities for a certain period. Some say Iran has committed to stopping for 3 years, while others say for 10 years.

If such a "temporary agreement" were to be formed, the U.S. would get what it essentially wants, while Iran would gain nominal and legal rights to engage in civilian nuclear activities but would not actually conduct any nuclear activities. The U.S. wins in substance, while Iran wins in appearance.

This is why Iran states that the so-called "temporary agreement" is simply not the case. So far, Iran opposes the "temporary agreement" because it would deprive Iran of its actual rights to engage in civilian nuclear activities. For Iran, it still hopes to reach a nuclear agreement similar to that of 2015, when Iran agreed to never produce nuclear weapons, allowed International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to verify its nuclear activities, and agreed to transfer a portion of the enriched uranium it had produced abroad, while retaining the right to produce enriched uranium at a level of 3.6%.

U.S. Continues to Increase Troops in the Middle East: What is the Current Situation?

Currently, the U.S. aircraft carrier strike group USS Ford has arrived at Crete, Greece, and will continue to sail eastward. Reports indicate that the U.S. has assembled the largest fleet of aircraft and vessels in the Middle East since the 2003 Iraq War. What is the current situation between the U.S. and Iran? Is the risk of war increasing?

Professor Niu Xinchun from Ningxia University’s Institute of China-Arab States Studies: If the U.S. wants to strike Iran, it needs to prepare in two areas. Unlike the media's focus on military preparations, for the U.S., military preparations are easier than political preparations; making a political decision is currently much more difficult.

The political issues the U.S. faces now are the same as they were a month ago. The first issue is that the U.S. has not clearly articulated its military objectives. Is it to punish the Iranian government, to effect regime change in Iran, to force Iran back to the negotiating table, or to substantially destroy Iran's missile and nuclear capabilities? There is no clear objective.

The second issue is that even if there is a clear objective, there is no consensus in the U.S. on whether military action can achieve that objective. Many senior U.S. military officials have stated that whether it is regime change or the substantial destruction of missile and nuclear facilities, conducting airstrikes against Iran would not achieve those goals. Additionally, is the U.S. willing to bear the cost of a large-scale retaliation from Iran after being struck? These political issues remain unresolved.

To Strike or Not to Strike Iran? Internal Struggles Leave the White House in a "Dilemma"

Currently, there is a voice within U.S. think tanks suggesting that the scale of U.S. military buildup in the Middle East is so large that if it ultimately does not take military action against Iran, it may become the most expensive instance of "bluffing." There are concerns that once military action is taken, the U.S. may become embroiled in a protracted military struggle, potentially bringing greater political risks to the White House. What kind of situation is the White House facing now?

Professor Niu Xinchun from Ningxia University’s Institute of China-Arab States Studies: On the surface, it seems that the U.S. can maneuver freely. As the U.S. itself states, military deployments are now in place, and various options are available: it can strike, refrain from striking, conduct a large-scale attack, or a small-scale one.

However, in reality, the U.S. is in a dilemma. If it does not strike, there are no benefits for the U.S., making it difficult to back down. The U.S. has deployed such a large military force and positioned itself so high; if there are no benefits and Iran makes no concessions, quietly withdrawing would be an unbearable burden for the U.S.

For the U.S., the ideal situation would be to reach an agreement with Iran in the coming days that allows the U.S. to gracefully conclude this military deployment. If this cannot be achieved, as Trump said, the U.S. may conduct a limited strike to push Iran back to the negotiating table and reach another agreement. If neither of these can be realized, the U.S. may only conduct a symbolic strike. The U.S. is most unwilling to engage in a prolonged large-scale regional war.