Trump's Sudden Optimism and Iranian Fault Lines

Political circles around the world, and more particularly international markets, lived this Monday, March 23, in anguish over military developments that risked occurring upon the expiration, in the evening, of the ultimatum launched by President Donald Trump to the Iranian regime, enjoining it to ensure free maritime navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, failing which he would order the bombing of power plants and energy infrastructure in Iran. In response, Tehran threatened to attack energy and vital facilities, particularly seawater desalination plants, in several Gulf countries.

Monday thus began in a particularly tense climate until the White House chief suddenly revealed in the early afternoon (Beirut time) that discussions had been engaged over the weekend with “the Iranian State,” he specified without any reference to the Islamic Republic, in order to reach an “agreement,” the outlines of which he did not indicate. He merely pointed out in this context that he had postponed the bombing of electrical and energy facilities for “five days,” allowing time for the talks engaged with the Iranian regime to unfold.

In a frank discussion with journalists, the US president revealed that contacts had been undertaken with “a very respected senior Iranian official,” noting in this regard that it was not the new Supreme Leader, whose fate, health condition, and location remain a mystery. In the late afternoon, Israeli sources revealed that the “senior official” in question is the head of the Iranian Parliament, Mohammed Bagher Ghalibaf, a former general of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and former police chief. Israeli media and American sources went so far as to emphasize that formal talks were planned in Islamabad, Pakistan, between Mr. Ghalibaf, on the one hand, and American Vice President Mr. Vance, and negotiators designated by Mr. Trump.

But a new twist: shortly after the US President's announcement, media close to the Pasdaran, as well as the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and "authorized sources" in Tehran, categorically denied any contact, direct or indirect, with the US Administration. Following the denial made public by the Pasdaran, the main person concerned, the head of Parliament, also published a statement in the early evening affirming that no negotiations had taken place with Washington, neither directly nor through a mediator.

This fluctuation at the Iranian level has raised many questions. Did President Trump have discussions with a “moderate” wing of the Iranian regime, represented in this instance by the Speaker of Parliament, without the Revolutionary Guards being closely or remotely involved? Did the denial, which the Pasdaran hastened to publish, bring to light a clear fault line within the regime between a pragmatic current, advocating a realistic agreement with the United States, and the radical hardline faction that refuses any compromise and insists on continuing the fight with the United States and Israel?

In recent years, there has often been talk of such a split between "reformist" and "radical" currents in Iran, but given the turn taken by the total war waged by the American and Israeli armies against the mullahs' regime, the fissure between these two wings of power, controlled before the war by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has undoubtedly widened and could very likely have led to a deep fracture within the regime between the "pragmatists" and the "radicals," especially in the absence of a Supreme Leader capable of acting as an arbiter and last resort. This break and the absence of the authority of the walih el-faqih would explain the speed with which the Pasdaran rushed to deny any draft agreement or any negotiation initiated with the American side.

With the clear aim of discrediting and emptying of its content the announcement made by President Trump, the Pasdaran and the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs went so far as to affirm that the statements made by the White House chief constitute only a "maneuver aimed at lowering the price of oil on the international market." Whether this imputation of motive is founded or not, the American president's revelations indeed caused a rapid drop in the price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil, for May delivery, which lost nearly 7.4% of its value in a few hours, falling to 90.95 dollars. In this context, some observers emphasize that the new five-day deadline, thus until Friday, set by President Trump reflects a desire to calm the markets throughout this week and to stem the climate of panic that was perceptible during the weekend and Monday morning.

Regime change?

In any event, President Trump maintained a clear climate of optimism throughout Monday, day and evening, which he accentuated by providing the broad outlines of the talks that had allegedly been engaged with the "senior Iranian official." He first specified that contacts had been initiated "Saturday evening," further asserting that a "regime change" is underway in Iran. "There is a regime change," he emphasized, noting in this regard that all senior officials of the power that was in place before the war have been killed.

The US President affirmed that "Iran wants to reach an agreement" and that its new interlocutors in Tehran, whom he described as "very reasonable," have agreed to deliver their stock of enriched uranium, significantly reduce the range of their ballistic missiles, put an end to uranium enrichment and thus renounce acquiring nuclear weapons, and refrain from destabilizing the countries of the Middle East. These concessions, if confirmed in fact and materialized by a solid agreement, would amount to a total capitulation.

The coming days will allow uncertainties on this plan to be lifted. In the meantime, military operations, shelling, and air raids continue intensely in several Iranian regions as well as in South Lebanon, where the Israeli army announced having taken several members of Hezbollah's elite unit, al-Radwane.