Will the Iran and US treaty talks lead to peace?

When President Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, met with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi last Saturday to discuss Iran’s nuclear ambitions, expectations for how the meeting would go were tepid at best. Yet after two hours of mostly indirect conversations—Oman’s foreign minister served as mediator—Witkoff and Araghchi spoke directly for roughly forty-five minutes. That unexpected exchange laid the groundwork for direct negotiations in Rome tomorrow. 

While a treaty is still far from imminent, the progress has many hopeful that a peaceful resolution may be possible. But what would such an agreement look like? And what has changed from the previous, mostly unsuccessful attempts to negotiate a solution? Here’s what we know so far:

• In the wake of Israel’s successful attacks on Iran’s defense systems and the dismantling of its proxy network throughout much of the Middle East, Iran is in a much weaker position than in previous negotiations. Moreover, reports that Trump has already had to call off Israel from launching its own attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites give further evidence that the consequences for not coming to a peaceful arrangement could prove devastating.
• When the US and its allies negotiated a peace deal with Iran in 2015, Iran’s nuclear capabilities were not nearly as advanced as they are today. As a result, while their nuclear facilities can be controlled, they retain the knowledge necessary to re-escalate much more quickly than in the past.
• Because Iran will retain the ability to rebuild their nuclear programs with greater ease, there is division within the Trump administration regarding how far they should push in these negotiations. All agree that a nuclear weapon should be off the table, but many are advocating for a complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear capabilities; a concession few believe Iran will be willing to make. 
• The UN’s ability to sanction Iran for enriching its uranium to weapons-grade levels expires on October 18. If Iran continues to push for further talks without any real progress being made, then it will be seen as evidence that they are using the negotiations as a shield from Israel until those expire. 
• President Trump has been clear that he desires a quick resolution, and it is unlikely that Israel will be held at bay long enough for Iran to refortify its defenses. As such, Saturday’s talks—and how long until the next round of discussions takes place—will likely be used by both the US and Israel as a barometer for how seriously Iran is interested in what they would consider an acceptable peace.

Ultimately, Isaac Saul summed up the situation well when he wrote, “We have maximum leverage, but we also have very, very little room for error.”

Why are negotiations so difficult?

The crippling weight of sanctions and the threat of an imminent attack from Israel means Iran needs this deal in a way that hasn’t been the case in the past. However, their leaders also know that their losses to Israel over the last year have eroded much of the trust and respect that has kept them in power. 

Given that Iran’s leadership has previously referred to the US as “the great Satan” and Israel as “the little Satan,” they’ll have to be wondering how much they can compromise with the supposed devil before making it appear as though they are compromising far more than their nuclear capabilities? 

That question may determine how productive these meetings are. After all, they are pledged to our destruction and the destruction of Israel, so how much can we really trust whatever terms are agreed upon? 

I hope I’m wrong, but I’ll be surprised if these negotiations end in a lasting peace. History shows that it’s difficult—if not impossible—to come to terms with someone when you’re essentially seeking fundamentally incompatible goals, as appears to be the case with the US and Iran. And that basic truth is relevant to far more than our hopes for peace in the Middle East.

Worshipping the wrong Messiah

Today is Good Friday—the day we remember Christ’s death on the cross and the sacrifice he made on behalf of humanity. However, very few who witnessed his tragic death understood what it meant or how it proved that he truly was the Messiah they had spent the better part of six centuries waiting to see. And the reason why is where I’d like to turn our attention today. 

You see, while the Gospels describe a host of Old Testament prophecies that Jesus fulfilled—61 to be exact—there was really only one that was non-negotiable for most of those living in first-century Israel: restoring the nation to its place of global dominance. Unfortunately for them, that’s not why Jesus came.

Jesus came to save their souls, while the Jews just wanted someone who would save their nation. So of course many rejected him, despite the miracles and prophecies, because he didn’t check what was, in their minds, the biggest box on the list of Messianic requirements. 

And they were not wrong to expect that their savior would bring about political restitution. After all, Isaiah 52, Psalm 126, Isaiah 6, and a host of others point to that eventuality, but those passages are always part of a much larger picture. Yet for those who came out to jeer Christ on the cross that day, the restoration of Israel was the foundation of what their Messiah was supposed to accomplish rather than the restoration of our relationship with God. 

And in twisting the biblical understanding of who God promised the Messiah would be in order to fit him into their picture of who they wanted the Messiah to be, they ended up in opposition to the very God they claimed to serve. Unfortunately, we are just as prone to make that same mistake today.

A God created in our image

All of us are tempted at times to worship a god created in our own image rather than the one who created us in his. We make this mistake when we latch on to the parts of God’s nature or Christ’s example that we like while ignoring the parts that we don’t, when we emphasize his love as somehow more important than his holiness, or when we heed his call to share the gospel while ignoring his call to help the needy. 

But the God who made us hasn’t given us the option of picking and choosing which parts of his standards we will keep. Instead, he calls us to die to ourselves so that we might follow him (Luke 9:23). 

So while it is easy this time of year to look back and judge the crowds that witnessed the miracles only to turn around and demand the death of the one who performed them, take a minute instead to ask the Holy Spirit to show you any areas where you’ve chosen to worship a God of your own making rather than the one who made you. Then commit to giving those misconceptions up and dedicating your life once again to the real Jesus. 

Christ stands ready and willing to help you know him. All you have to do is ask. 

Will you?

Quote of the day:

“To have been made in the likeness of God seemed a small matter to a son of earth unless he also attained equality with God.” —John Calvin

Our latest website articles:

• George Clooney, Nico Harrison, and the peril of popularity
• Exploring Jesus’ humanity: A special Easter devotional with Dr. Jim Denison
• Gen Z turns to Jesus, trade war with China, Harvard conflict & Rory McIlroy | Ep. 15
• What evangelicals can learn from the Harvard controversy
• Who am I in light of the resurrection?