Iran and the US have signed a preliminary deal. However, as The Guardian noted, the actual deal is heading for a “second phase.” Indeed, most of the reports this week leave a lot of questions about the actual Memorandum that has been signed electronically. And that’s not to mention the questions about what the extension of a 60-day ceasefire will mean.
These variables appear to be what Iran prefers. Iran has always preferred the slower processes. Iran likely believes that it benefits from drawing out the process and from more complications, not less. The more complex the deal-making process becomes, the harder it is for the US to walk away. Every variable that is introduced opens a potential talking point in the future.
Even if Iran is violates some of its promises, it can always point to the other parts of the deal it has adhered to as examples of how it is keeping in line with expectations.
This has been Iran’s modus operandi when it comes to deal-making. In fact, Iran did this exact same thing during the talks for the 2015 deal.
Iran has always believed that time is on its side. It also knows that many countries in the region prefer diplomacy over further conflict. As such, Iran knows that Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan, Oman, and other countries will help raise Iran’s case in Washington or in other places.
The potential US-Iran deal has garnered widespread praise from around the world, which proves that the international community also prefers talks to conflict.
The US-Iran agreement is supposed to see an end to the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz sooner rather than later. This would allow for economic growth and increased trade. Once this is accomplished, it will be difficult to return to war because other countries don’t want more chaos in the region.
It is for this reason that Iran seeks to draw out the process. Tehran is hoping to trigger a number of shifts in the region that will cement the diplomatic track into place. Once that has occurred, there will be much resistance to a new conflict.
The White House seemingly believes that diplomacy is better than war. It has preferred lower-level strikes since the April ceasefire, rather than a return to all-out war. This is also what Iran prefers.
Iran prefers 'incidents' to war
Iran believes that it is better to have small “tit-for-tat” exchanges of fire instead of a larger conflict. Iran has done this before. It has used its proxies in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen to spread conflict. It has also directly attacked the Gulf states in the past, such as its attacks on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq in 2019 and on vessels off the coast of the UAE’s Fujairah. Iran prefers these “incidents” to war. Afterwards, it will use these incidents as pressure points for further concessions.
Iran is not alone in doing this. For instance, the UK carried out a raid on the Iranian-linked vessel Grace 1 in 2019. Iran retaliated by sending vessels and choppers to harass vessels linked to the UK.
In the past, Iran and Israel also appeared to trade blows on ships.
Much of this current conflict occurs in the shadows. Iran has preferred to engage in shadow wars while also engaging in talks. It has continued this process since the April ceasefire.