Zero Time Difference: How the US-Iran Negotiations Became a "Rashomon"

In recent days, whether the United States and Iran have engaged in negotiations has seemingly become a "Rashomon," with conflicting messages adding further uncertainty to the already turbulent situation in the Middle East.

The latest news is that on March 25, Iranian Foreign Minister Amir-Abdollahian stated that the U.S. and Iran had conducted an "information exchange" through mediators, but this does not constitute negotiations in the true sense.

The U.S. side indicated that on the 24th, it presented Iran with a conflict resolution plan containing 15 conditions through Pakistan, covering nuclear programs, missile capabilities, and regional issues, with the intention of establishing a one-month ceasefire with Iran. Iran also submitted 5 conditions to the U.S. through the same channel, with core demands that were consistent with the "information" previously communicated through public statements. Whether it is the U.S.'s 15 points or Iran's 5 points, both sides are attempting to conclude the war with the posture of "victors."

Prior to this, the statements from both the U.S. and Iran regarding whether negotiations had taken place were contradictory. The U.S. first issued an ultimatum to Iran to "open the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours," but later changed its stance, claiming to have had "very good and productive" dialogue with Iran, postponing the ultimatum by "5 days." However, Iran clearly stated that it had not held any negotiations with the U.S.

A series of ambiguous statements have brought greater turmoil to the already clouded situation in the Middle East, causing significant fluctuations in global financial markets.

From the battlefield perspective, conflicts are still intensifying on multiple fronts. On the 24th local time, Iran stated that the U.S. and Israel had attacked two Iranian energy infrastructure sites, with even natural gas pipelines becoming targets. Meanwhile, U.S. military deployments in the Middle East continue to accelerate. Israel has ordered an increase in airstrikes against Iran, attempting to maximize the destruction of Iran's military industry before the U.S. potentially shifts towards a ceasefire. On the 26th local time, an Israeli official reported that the commander of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, Ali Reza Tangsiri, was killed in the attack.

In terms of market reactions, international oil prices fell sharply after the U.S. signaled negotiations, but quickly rebounded. On the 23rd Eastern Time, executives from major global oil companies gathered in Houston, expressing widespread concern over rising oil prices and warning that this conflict would cause long-term damage to the global economy.

From the statements of both the U.S. and Iran, it is not difficult to see that the U.S. seems to be more high-profile about negotiations, while Iran is much more cautious. Looking back at the outbreak of this conflict, the U.S. took military action against Iran suddenly, despite progress already being made in negotiations, which undoubtedly increases the difficulty for both sides to return to the negotiating table.

Going further back, over the years, from tearing up the Iran nuclear deal to engaging in "critical point negotiations," the U.S. has employed a series of tactics in negotiations with Iran, essentially using extreme pressure to maximize its own interests.

This time, the U.S. is simultaneously conveying that it is "serious about negotiations," hoping Iran seizes the "last opportunity," while also stating, "We negotiate with bombs," and "preparing to negotiate while ready to punch you in the face," which explains why Iran is so cautious about negotiations: "We've been deceived twice," and "No one can trust U.S. diplomacy." Amir-Abdollahian's latest response is, "Currently, our policy is to continue resisting," and Iran aims to end the war in a way that ensures it does not recur.

However, with each passing day of conflict, the Middle East experiences another day of turmoil. To truly resolve the conflict, negotiations are essential, but negotiations should not be a one-way street where one side issues orders to the other. The contradictions between the U.S. and Iran have become entangled with too many complex factors; to restart negotiations, both sides must return to the strategic clarity that war is not a solution.

Currently, many countries are making efforts to promote peace and dialogue. China has clearly stated that it hopes all parties seize every opportunity and window for peace and quickly initiate the negotiation process. Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan have formed a mediation group, and the Prime Minister of Pakistan has stated that they are fully prepared to host talks between the U.S. and Iran at any time.

Whether the U.S. and Iran are negotiating has become an "Rashomon" of information, but it points to the ultimate path for resolving the conflict—only through negotiation. The genuine expectation for the U.S. and Iran to sit down at the negotiating table is urgent for both the Middle East and the world.