After the MoU

The sun burns bright in Lucerne. Prospects of talks here have also brightened in the last few hours. Where do things go from here?

This Swiss city by the lake is brimming with tourists this time of the year. Men and women of all ages clad in shorts, shades and hats crowd neat streets and throng expensive eateries (there are few cheap ones). Lush green mountains surrounding the city beckon hikers. Those preferring less active holiday opt for a lazy cruise on Lake Lucerne. Very few are aware that only a few kilometres from here, the fate of the largest war of our times is being decided.

Well, sort of.

The much-hyped signing ceremony on Friday did not take place because one or both parties to the conflict were unsure of the optics it would generate. We know that Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif was all set to fly down here as the host of the event. Advance teams from the United States, Iran and Pakistan had already arrived a few days earlier. The mountain-top resort of Burgenstock was all readied and decked up for the guests. And yet, last minute hiccups persisted.

It was when I landed in Doha Thursday morning en route to Zurich that I first heard about complications in the plan. A very senior government person messaged me to say that Pakistan was trying to iron out these last-minute wrinkles. Things could go either way. By the time our flight took off from Doha a few hours later, it was becoming apparent that a resolution of the issue was not imminent. The Prime Minister's aircraft stood ready on the runway. As it happened, it never took off.

The ceremony at Burgenstock did not take place, but diplomacy never stopped. A day later, the same official messaged to say that Pakistan was now working feverishly to get the Iranians and Americans together for the second round of talks. He clearly knew what he was talking about.

On Saturday, the resort of Burgenstock began to hum with activity. First the Qataris arrived (yes, they do own the resort), then the Americans flew in (the inseparable duo of Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff), and soon senior people from Pakistan will join too (along with the Iranians). It appears, for now, that diplomacy is continuing to provide cautious but encouraging dividends. Pakistan is bang in the centre of it all.

But here's where things could get complicated.

Burgenstock will witness former combatants sitting across a table this weekend and the coming week. But the agenda on that table will test their skills, nerves and political capital. For those expecting quick results, you may want to lower your expectations.

In fact, keep them sub-surface. The probable outcomes vary according to who you speak to, or listen to. Take the nuclear issue first. In the MoU it is written clearly that Iran reiterates never to develop a nuclear weapon. Focus on the word "reiterate". This means Iran has broken no new policy ground by agreeing to this statement. In fact it has signalled that it isn't ready for any major concessions that would alter its stated position in any substantive way. The devil, as usual, lies in the details.

For instance, the level of enrichment. The Americans have asked for the maximum, and the Iranians have committed to nothing. Will they agree to JCPOA levels? Or negotiate on different "downblending" scales (bringing down uranium enrichment levels)? And what about transferring enriched uranium to another country? And if so, how much? All these are points of negotiations that may frustrate the Americans more than they may be willing to acknowledge. Iranians will not be in a rush, that much is certain.

Except when it comes to getting sanctions lifted and having their funds un-frozen. Here they would be in a rush, that much is also certain. But would Trump be in a rush to hand them these goodies? Take a wild guess.

And while you're in the guessing game, also think of the political capital that Trump has expended by wriggling out of this disastrous and deeply unpopular war. How much of this capital is expended will become clear in the November mid-term elections. The last thing he would want is to sign a final deal with the Iranians that compares unfavourably with Barack Obama's JCPOA. Would he then be in a rush? Take another wild guess.

So here we are stuck in a no-war-no-peace situation that may provide comfort to a surprisingly large number of stakeholders. Everyone can pretend they are talking peace while in reality they may be biding time for the aftermath of the war and the MoU to settle down. Talks will drag on. They will move from subject to subject, and from capital to capital – adorned richly with photo-ops and calculated media leaks. As bombs and missiles fall silent, a battle of narratives will wage hot and cold. Everyone will try to live happily after.

Is this bad? The answer may depend on where you stand on the Idealist-Realist spectrum. The hard cold logic however dictates that win-win situations exist only in textbooks and fairytales. In the real world someone must win. The other side will lose. It may take a while for them and others to recognise, acknowledge and accept the harsh truth, but there is no other way.

In the idyllic environs of Burgenstock, former combatants may not be ready yet to face the truth. They're in the Jack Nicholson Zone from the movie A few good men where he barks his famous line: "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth."

Can we all?