Trita Parsi

Yeah.

Good to see you.

Good to be with you guys.

If these are the American red lines and if these were the actual negotiation positions of the delegation in Islamabad, then I don't think there was any need for any negotiations at all.

Those are dead on arrival.

The US side knows it.

I don't think this is accurately reflected in the talks.

I think also there's a problem in which there's a diversity of views within the administration and various people are trying to influence the final position by leaking these type of things and making them the reality.

I do think also that in the talks, there were a lot of progress made, including on the nuclear issue.

But at last moment, there was a shift on the American side, whether that was

part of a negotiation tactic or whether that is yet another example of shifting goalposts, which unfortunately has become the hallmark of this administration's negotiations with Iran, remains to be seen.

So we know that in the previous negotiations, this is a shift that occurred as a result of the Israelis pushing very, very hard for it and using their echo chamber in Washington, et cetera, to kind of push Trump in that direction.

And that's part of the reason, a critical reason as to why the talks failed.

Because, you know, the only reason why the talks even began in the first place was because Trump kept on saying, my only red line is nuclear weapons, not nuclear enrichment or nuclear capabilities.

Had he said from the outset that his red line is nuclear capability and enrichment, I don't think the Iranians would have come to the table in the first place.

But once at the table, this shifted as a result of pressure from Israel.

Whether that is the case here or not, again, remains to be seen.

I can see a scenario in which because of progress having been made,

the U.S.

side kind of pulls back, knowing very well that there's still another week or so left of the ceasefire, sees what else it can get by adding some pressure.