Vance says Iran talks went well, but Iran not agreed to all Trump red lines

“In some ways it went well…in other ways it was very clear that the President has set some red lines that the Iranians are not yet willing to actually acknowledge and work through,” VP Vance said.

The United States described “progress” but remaining “open gaps” after talks with Iran held in Geneva, Switzerland, today, even as more U.S. war planes and material arrived in the Middle East.

Vice President JD Vance, after speaking with US negotiators Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, said in some ways the negotiations went well, but the Iranians have not yet agreed to some of Trump’s red lines.

“In some ways, it went well,” Vice President JD Vance said in an interview with Fox News of the U.S. Iran negotiations held in Geneva today. “They agreed to meet afterwards. But in other ways it was very clear that the President has set some red lines that the Iranians are not yet willing to actually acknowledge and work through.

“So we’re going to keep on working it,” Vance continued. “But of course, the President reserves the ability to say when he thinks that diplomacy has reached its natural end. We hope we don’t get to that point, but if we do, that will be the President’s call.”

Perception gap

Even though Iran and the United States do not prefer confrontation, it is difficult to bridge the very wide gap between how Trump thinks Iran should respond to the U.S. military build-up in the region, and Iranian perceptions, said Israeli Iran expert Raz Zimmt.

“The U.S. administration assesses that the Iranian regime, in its current weakened state, cannot risk a military confrontation,… and would therefore be prepared to make far-reaching concessions, …in exchange for an American willingness not to strike Iran,” Zimmt, director of the Iran program at the INSS think tank, wrote on Twitter today.

“The Iranian leadership, for its part, believes that the U.S., despite its military power, cannot achieve the ultimate objective of regime change,” Zimmt continued. “And that Iran possesses the capability, at minimum, to turn any military confrontation into a prolonged, costly, complex, and high-risk conflict for the U.S. and its regional allies.”

“In this reality, it is difficult to see how the maximum concessions Iran is willing to offer would meet the minimum concessions the U.S. administration would be prepared to accept,” Zimmt wrote, though he allowed that there might be a chance to reach a narrow agreement.

“We agreed on a set of guiding principles so as to begin drafting the text of a potential deal,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said after the talks in Geneva today, according to Iranian journalist Abas Aslani. “Good progress was made; the path ahead is clearer. Drafting will be hard work, but the path has started. The atmosphere was more constructive than the previous round.”

The talks, mediated by the Omani foreign minister, also included International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Grossi, the Omani diplomat said.

“Today’s indirect negotiations… concluded with good progress towards identifying common goals and relevant technical issues,” Oman Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi wrote on Twitter. “Together we made serious efforts to define a number of guiding principles for a final deal. The contribution of the IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi was much appreciated. Much work is yet to be done, and the parties left with clear next steps before the next meeting.”

A US official indicated the administration expected Iran to return with more detailed follow up proposals within two weeks.

“The Iranians said they would come back in the next two weeks with detailed proposals to address some of the open gaps in our positions,” the US official, speaking not for attribution, said.

The Muslim holy month of Ramadan starts today and lasts until around March 19.

Former U.S. officials see uncertain outcome in strikes targeting regime

Mick Mulroy, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East during Trump’s first term, cautioned against using U.S. military strikes to try to achieve regime change in Iran.

“I would be very hesitant to try to do regime change without a good knowledge of what comes next,” Mulroy said on an Iran panel hosted by the Middle East Institute. “One, because the people that we’re negotiating with…might not be there to come back to the table.

“I think our objective should be ultimately to get to a new nuclear agreement that…is acceptable, and then also deal with the ballistic missile and support to proxies in some form or fashion,” Mulroy said.

Trump in his first year in office pursued both negotiations and military confrontation with Iran and now faces the prospect of a major military escalation once again, egged on by hawks, without any clear vision of what might come after strikes to topple the regime in Iran, two former US officials who worked on Iran observed.

“Washington should not follow through on Trump’s threats to strike Iran in response to the crackdown on protesters,” former senior US officials Nate Swanson and Ilan Goldenberg wrote at Foreign Affairs. “No one, including Trump, has any idea what effect strikes would have on the psyche of those resisting the regime and those upholding it.”

“An indecisive outcome against a wounded, cornered regime increasingly willing to use violence against its population could replicate the conditions that led to the Syrian civil war, further destabilizing the country and the region,” they warned.

**