Crescent International
The narrative pushed by the US and its surrogates claims that the Trump regime is negotiating from a position of strength, while Iran is acting out of desperation.
This illusion is peddled by those who rely solely on headlines, without any grounding in history or the principles of international relations.
Western imperial powers do not enter negotiations unless compelled to do so.
The Cuban Missile Crisis, the US occupation of Vietnam, French colonization of Algeria, the collapse of apartheid in South Africa, the ongoing war in Ukraine, and the Hizbullah–Israel ceasefire all point to a single reality: western regimes engage in diplomacy only when faced with credible power projection.
The United States would never negotiate with Islamic Iran if it believed it could achieve its objectives by coercive means.
To separate reality from illusion, let us begin our analysis of US–Iran negotiations by examining the weaknesses of each side.
From a broad perspective, Islamic Iran’s main vulnerability lies in its struggling economy and its geographic encirclement by illegitimate, despotic regimes—entities that lack political agency of their own and readily serve Washington’s interests.
On a tactical level, Iran’s key weakness lies in the fact that if the ongoing regional war escalates, the Iranian state will face tangible consequences.
While Islamic Iran can strike Israeli and US assets across West Asia, it lacks the geographic reach to bring the war directly to the US homeland.
This factor creates a certain limit on Iran’s ability to control the regional escalation ladder.
Another key factor that constrains Islamic Iran is its adherence to the principles of Islamic governance, which are foundational to its identity as an Islamic state.
In a world where most political entities have only a superficial understanding of the relevance of principles to governance, Iran treats them as an integral part of its strategic soft power and political identity—something it cannot simply disregard.
As the only authentically constructed Islamic state actively confronting zionism and US imperialism, Iran understands that any weakening of its position would signal a broader setback for the global Islamic movement.
A similar constraint, though rooted in realpolitik, applies to the US as well.
As the self-appointed leader of western neo-colonialism and the secular-liberal order, anything short of a decisive victory in a direct confrontation with a mid-level ideological power like Iran would only accelerate the ongoing decline of US global hegemony.
With this backdrop, let us analyze the overall weak points of the Washington regime in its ongoing political tussle with Iran.
The American establishment realizes that Trump’s crude style has drained the US’s soft power, leaving it politically weakened and isolated.
A Trump-led war would lack the global backing previous American regimes were able to mobilize.
Washington understands that if it—or Israel at its behest—launches an attack on Iran, Tehran will respond with a “nothing to lose” mindset.
In such a scenario, Iran’s retaliation would be severe, targeting America’s most valuable regional asset: Israel.
This kind of response would undermine the very objective of attacking Iran: to prevent damage to zionist Israel.
While Islamic Iran would suffer significant losses, Israel—due to its imported demographic makeup, limited size, and the broader regional dynamics—would turn into a failed entity very quickly, likely triggering a mass exodus.
Another key American weakness lies in the likelihood that both Russia and China would back Iran—much like western regimes continue sponsoring Ukraine as a proxy.
Their support would not stem from any ideological affinity with Islamic Iran, but rather from a strategic desire to further exhaust the west militarily, politically and economically.
The factors outlined above establish a relatively equal strategic footing between the US and Islamic Iran.
Notably, initial reports from Amwaj Media indicate that Steve Witkoff presented a draft proposal that made no mention of “dismantling” Iran’s nuclear program, nor did it contain explicit threats of military action should negotiations fail.
Leading to the indirect talks in Oman, these conditions were touted as America’s demands.
What Witkoff presented to Iran suggests that the US has recognized the limitations of its imperial reach.
While it is too early to predict the outcome of the US–Iran talks, the prospects for success appear limited.
The global zionist lobby recognizes that if Islamic Iran manages to neutralize the immediate threat of violence during the current regional war, it will likely use the lull to recalibrate its political and military strategy.
Given that Israel remains entangled in a deepening regional quagmire, this would ensure the continued erosion of its strength.
No comments:
Post a Comment