CAIRO, March 13 (Xinhua) -- Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Wednesday that "the only way" to end its war with the United States and Israel "is recognizing Iran's legitimate rights, payment of reparations, and firm international guarantees against future aggression."
However, regional experts and scholars have widely considered the three preconditions as unworkable. Some of their views are as follows:
RECOGNIZING IRAN'S LEGITIMATE RIGHTS
-- This demand is a "non-starter" for Israel and the United States, as it would imply acceptance of Iran's nuclear program, said Abdel Mohdy Motawe, executive director of the Cairo-based Middle East Forum for Strategic Studies and National Security.
"Accepting such terms would constitute an implicit validation of Iran's right to uranium enrichment and the continued development of its nuclear infrastructure," Motawe said.
-- Full agreement on this proposal is unlikely due to the irreconcilable interpretations held by Iran and its adversaries, according to Jumaa Mohammed, politics professor at Iraq's Tikrit University.
"Iran intends it to mean recognition of its regional role, its right to develop its defensive capabilities, and its peaceful nuclear program," Mohammed said. "In contrast, the United States and Israel view this as potentially legitimizing activities they consider a threat to stability, such as supporting armed groups in the region or developing ballistic missiles."
"Consequently, if both parties adhere to their conflicting interpretations of this condition, it will pose a significant obstacle to any diplomatic solution," he said.
PAYMENT OF REPARATIONS
-- The demand for reparations is highly unrealistic, as it would require the United States and Israel to admit war guilt, said political analyst from Gaza Mustafa Ibrahim.
Ibrahim believes asking for reparations appears more like "a political bargaining position" to strengthen Iran's negotiating leverage, rather than a condition that could "realistically be implemented in the near term."
-- Reparations are highly complicated, as political divisions and veto risks at the UN make consensus on compensation mechanisms extremely time-consuming, said Khaled Al-Qahtani, Saudi political science researcher at Imam Mohammad bin Saud University.
"Given the political divisions in the international system and the likelihood of vetoes in the UN Security Council, achieving consensus on compensation mechanisms would be extremely difficult," Al-Qahtani said.
He added, "Even if discussed, the process could take years of negotiations and legal disputes."
FIRM INT'L GUARANTEES AGAINST FUTURE AGGRESSION
-- Ibrahim noted that firm international guarantees are challenging to implement due to "deep mistrust among the warring parties."
Moreover, "past experiences in the region show that international guarantees alone are often insufficient to prevent future conflicts, especially when underlying geopolitical tensions remain unresolved," he added.
-- Jordanian political analyst Amer Sabaileh believes that the United States and Israel seek a radical change in Iran, making recognition of Iran's terms unattainable.
"The idea that the Iranian government believes it can simply return to the status quo ante is unrealistic," Sabaileh said.
-- The ultimate outcome, including any security arrangement, will be determined by the battlefield, not by negotiations based on current demands, said Refaat Badawi, former political advisor to late Lebanese Prime Minister Salim al-Hoss.
"We expect that in the near future ... there will be a great increase in confrontation, because the two parties have reached the point of no return," Badawi said. "In the end, the final word will be for the battlefield." ■
