Experts: external and internal factors shaping US-Iran talks in Doha
Diplomacy is the art of speaking even when parties are not ready to look each other in the eye. When an anticipated face-to-face meeting at the negotiating table turns into an exchange of messages through intermediaries, it signals that trust has been lost and disagreements run deeper than they appear. In such conditions, even the most optimistic promises risk remaining empty words, and negotiations risk dragging into an endless cycle of mutual recriminations.
The long-awaited face-to-face talks between the United States and Iran, scheduled for Wednesday in Doha, Qatar, were reduced to an indirect format mediated by Qatar and Pakistan, underscoring deepening mistrust and irreconcilable differences between the two sides. According to Qatari broadcaster Al Jazeera, there is no sign of progress towards lasting peace. The parties remain stuck on issues that were supposedly resolved in a preliminary agreement.
On 17 July, the US and Iran remotely signed a memorandum of understanding, committing to reach a final agreement within 60 days. However, just days after signing, the sides returned to hostilities, turning the memorandum's promise of an "immediate and final cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon" into empty rhetoric. A hallmark of US-Iran interaction in this period has been relentless testing of each other's resolve through belligerent statements, keeping both countries on the brink of escalation and de-escalation.
Chinese experts have warned that oscillating confrontations are likely to persist. Niu Xinchun, dean of the China-Arab Research Institute at Ningxia University, noted that both sides want to appear as victors: the US sees its trump card as the ability to launch massive military strikes, while Iran sees its ability to block the Strait of Hormuz. However, tough positions are largely aimed at domestic audiences. In Iran, political forces remain deeply hostile to the US, while in Washington, ahead of the midterm elections, Trump is forced to show toughness even though he has already made concessions.
Zhang Chuchu, deputy director of the Center for Middle East Studies at Fudan University, added that the US does not want a deadlock but cannot fully restrain Israel, which acts as a tough buffer against Iran. For Tehran, the key demand is to restrain Israel to achieve a ceasefire in Lebanon. Both sides may adopt a phased approach, but the process will involve constant twists.
Despite disagreements, analysts consider the likelihood of a full-scale war low. The US needs a diplomatic victory before the elections, while Iran wants asset freezes and sanctions lifted. However, nearly a third of the 60-day deadline has passed, and key issues – enforcement of the ceasefire regime in Lebanon and freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz – remain unresolved.
As CCTV+ reports. Observers expect the parties to continue testing the waters in coming weeks, but no breakthrough is foreseen.
