By Press TV Website Staff
After nearly 40 days of full-intensity war triggered by the US-Israeli aggression against Iran on February 28, Washington's maximalist demands have quietly dissolved.
As mediators push for a permanent end to the unprovoked war of aggression, the shifting diplomatic landscape reveals a significant strategic recalculation in the Persian Gulf.
Speaking to the Press TV website, Hamidreza Asefi, a former Iranian foreign ministry spokesman and ambassador, said Trump "achieved none of his objectives."
He pointed to the stark contrast between Washington's initial rhetoric and the current reality, which he said shows that Trump "received much less than what Obama had obtained in the JCPOA (2015 Iran nuclear deal).”
A ceasefire, not a peace — and a deal still far off
The military aggression, which began on February 28 and came to a halt nearly 40 days later in the face of Iran's spirited resistance, has fundamentally altered the region's security architecture, with the Islamic Republic emerging as a new global power.
A ceasefire was secured on April 8 on Iranian terms, but a formal, permanent end to the war has yet to materialize.
Unconfirmed reports are doing the rounds about the contours of a potential agreement mediated by Pakistan, which would potentially include an end to the US-Israeli aggression on all fronts, the release of frozen Iranian assets, the lifting of the US naval blockade, and the withdrawal of US forces from the region.
Despite this, Asefi cautioned against premature optimism amid ongoing indirect talks facilitated by intermediaries based on Tehran's 14-point peace proposal.
“I think we are very far from reaching a peace agreement,” he said. “What is happening here is a ceasefire and the establishment of a kind of non-hostility; now, the establishment of peace might occur in later stages.”
Washington's demands: from maximalism to retreat
The former ambassador noted that Washington’s demands have been drastically scaled back since the war began. “Trump is a master at shifting his goals and his stances,” Asefi said
Initially, the US demanded that Iran surrender unconditionally, cease all enrichment, forfeit its uranium stockpiles, end support for regional resistance groups, and reduce its missile range to just 300-400 kilometers. The former foreign ministry spokesman noted that these demands have now completely changed with the change in ground realities.
Asefi noted that Trump now touts the opening of the Strait of Hormuz as an achievement, citing the US president's recent social media posts. However, the former ambassador dismissed this, pointing out that the strait was never closed to the wider world.
In reality, the strategic waterway remains closed specifically to US and allied vessels amid Washington's maritime banditry and “naval blockade”. Iran has asserted legitimate control over the strategic waterway, maintaining that it will remain closed to hostile commercial vessels until all Iranian demands are fulfilled.
The US has also cited preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons as a victory.
“Well, we have said this for a long time, meaning since the beginning of the Revolution,” Asefi explained, adding that this stance is backed by the fatwa (religious decree) of the martyred Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, and confirmed by the UN nuclear agency in many of its reports.
On Iran's enriched uranium stockpiles, the US position has similarly eroded, he stated.
“Regarding those 400-plus kilograms of enriched uranium, first Trump said it must be handed over to us; then he said it can be handed over to China,” the former envoy noted.
“Yesterday, he also said that regarding these stockpiles, they must be optimally managed, which marks yet another retreat.”
Asefi attributed Washington's failure to several core Iranian strengths. “This is due to nothing but the presence of the people on the scene, the perseverance of the people, and the high military and defense capability of the Islamic Republic,” he said.
The strategic leverage of the Strait of Hormuz, he added, played a pivotal role — one whose significance had been underestimated. “The Strait of Hormuz was something whose importance we had not paid attention to from the beginning to the extent that is now clear.”
On Pakistan's role
The diplomatic maneuvering to end the war has heavily relied on Islamabad. Pakistan's army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, recently paid a one-day visit to Tehran — his second trip in recent weeks — to discuss efforts aimed at ending the third imposed war.
Asefi praised Pakistan's intense mediation efforts, which included numerous visits and quiet diplomacy. Notably, he pointed to a less visible dimension of Islamabad's role.
“Another thing it did, which has not become very apparent, was that it built a bridge with China,” he said, explaining that Pakistan leveraged Beijing as an old ally.
Pakistan's motivations for stepping in are multifaceted, he added. “Pakistan, in any case, has some capacities among Islamic countries; it possesses nuclear weapons and has a large population,” the former spokesman noted.
Through this successful mediation, Islamabad seeks international prestige and a stronger balance against India, said Asefi, adding that Pakistan hopes to establish better relations with Saudi Arabia, thereby achieving a broader balance between Iran and the Kingdom.
A new regional equation
As the geopolitical fallout of the war is analyzed globally, the former ambassador noted that think tanks from China to the West have reached common conclusions.
“These studies say that this war showed that in the new formula for peace, the new rule is the serious role and agency of the Islamic Republic, especially in international waterways,” Asefi told the Press TV website.
Another crucial lesson concerns the limits of alliance networks versus territorial strength. “Another point it mentions is that network power cannot replace strategic depth,” he said.
Asefi used the United Arab Emirates as a prime example: while the UAE had built strong economic, military, and intelligence cooperation with various countries, that network power proved insufficient when tested against actual strategic depth, he asserted.
Ultimately, the war has exposed the true weight of regional actors. “These events showed that the geopolitics of the region have changed, and the actual weight of the countries has also become clear,” Asefi noted.
“If we pay attention to these factors, it shows regional countries must adapt to the new situation and seek to create an endogenous security in the region,” he added.
No comments:
Post a Comment