Iran leader uses strategy of ambiguity in nuclear talks
Ayatollah’s talk of ‘red lines’ may be political posturing, but he can declare a win even if agreement falls apart
TEHRAN, Iran — Persian carpets were rolled out in the Beit-e Rahbar, the downtown Tehran offices of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on Tuesday, a sign that important guests were on their way.
One by one, members of Iran’s establishment, politicians, clerics and commanders filed in, many exchanging the perfunctory greetings of committed rivals. They sat cross-legged and waited anxiously, knowing a crucial week of nuclear negotiations with Western powers lay ahead and not knowing what to expect from Khamenei.
The red lights of the state television cameras blinked on and he started speaking. He praised the Iranian negotiating team as great patriots and wise men. Then he reversed field, specifying seven “red lines” for the negotiators, strictures that appeared to undercut several of the central agreements they had already reached with the West.
Afterward, most in the audience were confused, friend and foe. Did Iran’s leader just derail the talks by making impossible demands days before the June 30 deadline to reach a deal? Or, more likely, was he trying to strengthen the hand of his representatives in the negotiations?
Classic performance
Whatever the interpretation, it was a classic per- formance by Khamenei, part of a strategy of ambiguity that analysts say he has followed for more than a decade on the tortuous path to a nuclear deal that, if achieved on his terms, would crown his legacy.
“Our leader deliberately takes ambiguous stances because our enemies, including the United States, constantly shift their positions,” said Hossein Ghayyoumi, a cleric and politician who supports a nuclear deal. “In politics, details and red lines can shift from time to time.”
This ambiguity serves multiple purposes. In Iran’s opaque political system, the supreme leader presides over a spectrum of factions all vying for power, influence and money. By weaving back and forth — praising the “patriotism” of the nuclear negotiators, for instance, while drawing “red lines” in the negotiations — he keeps the moderate opposition happy while placating the hard-liners in the clergy and the military.
Guaranteed a victory
For Khamenei, the ultimate goal is government survival, in both domestic politics and foreign relations. While he has a clear national objective in the nuclear talks — freeing his country from damaging economic sanctions while preserving an independent nuclear energy program — he needs to be careful about his approach, so as not to be vulnerable to criticism in the political realm, particularly from hard-line conservatives.
Through a series of such statements, along with constant warnings that the United States is not to be trusted, he seems to have maneuvered himself into a position where he can declare victory no matter how the coming round of talks comes out.
If his negotiators fail, and sanctions remain, he can blame the United States, proving his point that its leaders cannot be trusted. If they succeed, and Iran can be freed of sanctions while keeping its nuclear program, he will have secured a place for himself in the country’s history.