The November 24 deadline is upon us and the negotiations are reaching the hours of truth, with the two sides saying some gaps remain unfilled. There is a growing possibility that yet another interim agreement is concluded and talks are extended for a couple of months. Failure of the talks still remains an option, albeit not strong enough to be a factor in the calculus of Iran or the West.

Fars News Agency (FNA) filed an interview with Hooman Majd, a New York-based Iranian-American writer and journalist, on Monday November 24 on speculations over the nuclear negotiations and the slim chance of the talks breaking down.

Majd, who is an analyst with the New Yorker, said that chances for the talks to fail are slight and that the [positive] effects of a possible deal are of great importance for both Iran and the West. The following is a partial translation of what Majd had to tell FNA:

Parties to the talks are trying to clinch an agreement which could appease the critics.

For the time being, it is impossible to predict the result of the talks, because even the negotiators don’t know if they could ink a final deal. What is certain, though, is that both the US and Iran want to reach an agreement they could defend in the face of criticism. Another point is that neither party is willing to give in to what the other side is calling for.

A deal seems more likely to be concluded thanks to a strong political will on both sides following intense talks. It remains to be seen if the negotiators could strike a comprehensive accord or they agree to the framework of a deal and leave the details for future talks. I think the chances of reaching one of these two are more than 50 percent and the odds of a breakdown are less than 20 percent.

An agreement will carry weight for the two sides. It would mean the West’s regional interests can be put in order and the two countries can cooperate in areas of mutual interest and reduce tensions.

Whether a possible deal could mark the beginning of a thaw in US-Iran relations remains to be seen, but it could produce positive economic and political results for Iran. It will also boost the legitimacy of the Iranian establishment at home and abroad and will open the door to broader efforts to effectively deal with problems the region is facing.

If talks end inconclusively, the two sides will face dire consequences. Iran will probably be hit with more sanctions and isolation. As for the US, it will face obstacles in its efforts to stabilize the region and support its allies.

If so, tensions will mount and the specter of a war or conflict will continue to hover over the region. The total breakdown of the talks is the worst-case scenario one can imagine.

In an editorial on Sunday November 23, Javan, a daily that reflects the viewpoints of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps described the prospects of nuclear talks between Iran and P5+1 as anything but bright, saying, “By the November 24 deadline, the desirable result which is the lifting of sanctions won’t materialize.”

Javan blamed a lack of independent political will in the United States for the bleak prospect and said the domineering role of the “Zionist will” is bound to thrust the latest round of talks into a deadlock.

Still, the daily claimed, “No matter what the result of the talks, we will emerge as winners.” It went on to say: “We would have felt defeated if we had been in pursuit of nuclear arms. That has never been the case. The religious aspect of the issue [a fatwa by the Supreme Leader banning the development and use of nuclear weapons] is so compelling that we will never pursue atomic weapons.”

The daily went on to describe “failure to lift the sanctions” as a kind of victory, citing that it would set the stage for the resistance economy to be taken more seriously. “That in turn will help secure growth and development which amounts to victory,” the paper said.

On the one hand, Javan said victory in the talks hinged on “termination of all sanctions”, and on the other, described failure to clinch a deal that does not remove all the sanctions imposed on Iran as a “victory” too, citing the following:

– We are victorious because talks with six major powers have resulted in their acceptance of Iran’s authority.

– We are victorious because the insight and capabilities of the Iranian people are bolstered. A first-hand experience of Western animosity toward Iran and Islam will stiffen the resolve of our nation to be more prepared to launch a constant battle against the West and the world of barbarism.

– We are victorious because overoptimistic individuals at home will hit the end of the line. Those who support the West are now wiping the sweat beads of shame off their foreheads […] will no longer say, “The world is a stage for interaction and give and take. They will accept that hegemonic powers have deep-rooted problems with the Islamic Revolution.”

– We are victorious because the resistance economy [a strategy geared toward more economic growth devised by the Supreme Leader and placed on the agenda of the government] will get off the ground. And those who seek to reach a deal with the West and render such an approach to economy inert will be disappointed.

– We are victorious because the current generation and those who come in the future will overcome their doubts as to why the Den of Espionage [the US Embassy in Tehran] was taken over in late 1979 and that will vindicate the revolutionaries.

– We are victorious because once again it will be proven that the problem of the West with the Islamic Revolution revolves around the existence of the latter.

– We are victorious because a lack of agreement would prove that Iran has made efforts to build trust and our representatives at the talks have insisted on their rational core principles.

The daily concludes the piece by saying, “Now the Iranian nuclear negotiators feel they are involved in a holy war, and the nation views them as triumphant warriors on the frontline.”

On Saturday November 22, eaworldview.com [a news website featuring daily news and analysis about Syria, Iran and the wider Middle East as well as US and Russian foreign policy] quoted reliable sources as saying that Iran was considering a new proposal by P5+1. It said although the proposal did not enshrine a comprehensive deal, it entailed progressive mechanisms in specific areas which would support an extension of the negotiations until March.

With the countdown to the deadline for a nuclear deal on, Alef, a news website run by Ahmad Tavakoli [a very influential Iranian MP], posted an analysis under the heading of “Is the extension of nuclear talks to the benefit of Iran?” What comes below is the translation of the piece in its entirety:

These days, most international media report that an extension of nuclear talks is likely. The question is in case a comprehensive deal is not concluded with the West, would an extension of the talks be a good alternative?

It seems that extension of the Geneva Interim Agreement at a time when no progress has been made would not be to the benefit of the government, rather it would help the West buy time. Such a concession would keep sanctions in place and constrain Iran’s peaceful nuclear program once more to make Tehran acquiesce to the excessive demands of America.

Vienna 8 nuclear talks are being held as many believe that talks in Muscat could have marked the end of the confrontation between Iran and the West. However, the showdown did not come to an end there, leaving the knot to be untied at the negotiating table in Vienna.

With only a couple of days left before a November 24 deadline, there are only three options ahead for the negotiating sides: Striking a final deal and putting an end to nuclear talks which are in their 12^th year; extending the talks and postponing the final accord until later; or failing [to reach a deal] and returning to where the two sides were before the Geneva Interim Agreement.

Out of the three options, none can be regarded as the definite outcome of the Vienna talks, but an analysis of each can indicate which one can possibly offer the best solution.

As for the first option, to clinch a final deal, the West, the US in particular, are required to abandon excessive demands and as President Rouhani said at the close of a Cabinet meeting they should not use their internal problems as a pretext to make excessive demands.

Generally, Iran has done what it was required to do. There has been as much transparency as possible in Iran’s atomic program. There is only one part left, the same outstanding issue that Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Yukiya Amano pointed out on November 20. However, as a diplomat close to Iran’s negotiating team told the BBC Iran has put off final cooperation with the IAEA until a final deal has been clinched. To put it simply, that is Iran’s last trump card against the West. If Iran fulfilled this request [bowing to a tougher inspection regime], it would have met all Western demands and would be left with no bargaining chip if a deal was not struck.

In case Iran and the West failed to cut a final deal, they would have to opt for either of the two remaining options: an extension of the Geneva deal or a return to where they were before that agreement.

It seems that an extension of the Geneva Interim Agreement would be more to the benefit of the other side than Iran. With oil prices at their lowest in years, Europe does not import Iranian oil as much as it did three years ago and does not have any concerns about its energy supplies in the upcoming winter. The question is why they wouldn’t want to keep Iran in the present conditions.

Realistically thinking, we should not count much on optimistic analyses that America is in pursuit of a deal with Iran. Of course, America could restore peace and stability to the region with the help of Iran at a lower cost.

So we should know that keeping Iran in these conditions won’t harm American or Western interests. Will it have the same impact on Rouhani’s government? Definitely not, particularly, for a president who swept to power on a platform of interaction with the world, believing that he could untie the nuclear knot his own way.

What should be done?

In case Iran and the West fail to cut a comprehensive deal in the time left, Iran’s negotiating team could seriously contemplate the option of not extending the Geneva Interim Agreement. Because failure to strike a comprehensive deal would mean that no knot has been untied and disagreements over fundamental matters – especially the lifting of sanctions and scale of Iran’s uranium enrichment – remain unresolved. That would also mean that ten months after the Geneva deal the views of the two sides are far from close.

The release of some of Iran’s frozen assets was the only positive aspect of the Geneva deal for Iran. Although no further new sanctions were slapped on Iran, the absence of further sanctions was exposed to lots of ifs and buts thanks to Obama’s policies on sanctions.

Unfortunately, a major problem associated with the performance of Iran’s negotiating team was that they postponed bargaining over the lifting of sanctions until the eleventh hour. If they had done it from day one, the other side would have been on the defensive and would have been denied the chance to make excessive demands.

We are of the opinion that bargaining over the outright removal of sanctions could have been made from the get-go instead of talking about ‘suspension’ rather than ‘removal’ of sanctions a few months ahead of the deadline.

All in all, an extension of the Geneva Interim Agreement has a clear message for the West: The motto of Iran’s government and nation is based on the fact that we try our utmost to get things transparent and in the absence of a deal, it would dawn on the world that the West is turning to excuses to confront Iran.

An extension of the talks without knots being untied, would in fact put Iran in a weaker position. It’s time for Iran to seriously consider the option of no deal and think of new solutions or at least draw a distinction between what it says and what it does.