Iran and the US have signed a preliminary deal. However, the actual deal is heading for a “second phase,” the Guardian noted. In fact, most of the reports this week leave a lot of questions about the actual Memorandum that has been signed electronically. In addition, it appears that there are also questions about what the extension of a sixty-day ceasefire will mean.
All these variables appear to be what Iran prefers. Tehran has always preferred slow processes and talk. Tehran believes it benefits from drawing out the process and having more complexity enter the picture. The more complex the deal-making process, the harder it is for the US to walk away. The more variables that exist, the more different points can be discussed in the future. Even if Iran is perceived as violating some part of the process or some variables, Tehran can always point to the fact that it has adhered to other parts of the deal as an example of how it is doing what is expected.
This has been the usual Iranian method of dealmaking. It did this back when it was in talks about the 2015 deal. Iran has always believed that time is on its side. It also knows that it has a number of countries in the region that prefer to see diplomacy over more 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 widespread praise that the potential US-Iran deal has been greeted with around the world is evidence of how the international community prefers talks to conflict.
The agreement that is taking shape with the US is supposed to soon see an end to the blockades of the Strait of Hormuz. This would help set in motion economic growth and increased trade. Once this is accomplished, it will be hard to go back to war because countries will not want more trade chaos in the region. It is for this reason that Iran seeks to draw out the process. Tehran hopes to set in motion a number of shifts in the region that will help cement in place the diplomatic track. Once that has happened, there will be a lot of inertia against a new conflict.
The White House also appears to feel that diplomacy is better than war. It has preferred low-level proportional strikes since the April ceasefire, to a return to war. This is also what Iran prefers. Iran believes that it is better to have small “tit-for-tat” exchanges of fire than have a large conflict.
Iran prefers 'incidents' to war
Iran has done this before. It has used proxies in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen to spread conflict. It has also directly attacked the Gulf states in the past, such as a large attack on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq in 2019, and also attacks on vessels off the coast of the UAE’s Fujairah in the past. Iran prefers “incidents” to war. It then uses these as pressure points for more 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 then retaliated by sending vessels and choppers to try to stop vessels linked to the UK.
Iran and Israel also appeared to trade tit-for-tat attacks on ships in the past. Much of this conflict occurs in the shadows. Iran has preferred low-level shadow wars while also engaging in talks. It has continued this process since the April ceasefire.