A ceasefire with Iran presupposes a negotiating process and the search for mutually acceptable compromises. Yet time is passing, and no solutions are in sight.
Alexandr Svaranc
Iran Stiffens Its Stance
Through its capacity for resistance and its actions in the Strait of Hormuz, Iran in fact created a crisis on global energy markets and disrupted the uninterrupted export of oil from the key Arab states of the Persian Gulf — Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Kuwait.
Iran has repeatedly become convinced that the United States used negotiations not in order to reach compromise solutions, but rather to mislead the international community, lull the Iranians into a false sense of security, and prepare for aggressive actions
Carrying out a rapid ground military operation by US and Israeli forces involving an invasion of Iranian territory in order to establish control over local energy infrastructure (for example, Kharg Island) and seize enriched uranium from underground facilities would, firstly, have been extremely complicated and offered no guarantee of success and, secondly, would have implied drawing a number of neighbouring states into the conflict with Iran (for example, Turkey, Azerbaijan, or Pakistan). The latter scenario had not been fully worked out by the Americans and invoked concerns among states neighbouring the Islamic Republic of Iran, particularly in light of Iran’s actions towards several Persian Gulf countries that had indirectly participated in the war on the side of the United States and Israel.
Within the United States itself, President Donald Trump has been facing negative sentiment towards his “Iranian adventure,” alongside a rapid decline in his approval ratings. At the same time, America’s NATO allies refrained from their own direct involvement in the conflict with Iran, including collective action to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Washington’s claims that Iran had been deprived of its defensive capabilities in terms of naval forces, missile systems, and unmanned aerial vehicles proved to be far removed from reality. It goes without saying that a month of air strikes inflicted considerable damage on the Iranian side. Nevertheless, Tehran retained sufficient resources to proceed with its independent resistance, including missile systems, drones, fast attack craft, and launch platforms, as well as the ability to involve pro-Iranian Shiite armed groups across the Middle East, including in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen.
The meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing was also expected to cast some light on the Iranian issue. China is one of Iran’s key allies and has a strong interest in the swift reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and Iranian ports due to its imports of Iranian oil. On its part, Iran has declared its willingness to carry out productive negotiations and maintain a peaceful agenda, provided that its interests are respected, although it is not pleading for peace if its proposals are ignored. Tehran has put forward five conditions:
- Guarantees of a complete cessation of hostilities and lasting peace;
- Compensation for the damage inflicted;
- Renunciation of military nuclear ambitions and refusal to transfer enriched uranium to a third party, provided that Iran’s right to develop peaceful nuclear energy under IAEA supervision is recognized;
- The lifting of economic sanctions;
- The unfreezing of Iranian assets and restoration of access to the international financial system.
Iran has expressed its readiness for peace and for strengthening regional security, including the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz in case all the above mentioned conditions are provided for. In principle, all of Tehran’s stated positions fit within the logic of the existing confrontation.
Iran has repeatedly become convinced that the United States used negotiations not in order to reach compromise solutions, but rather to mislead the international community, lull the Iranians into a false sense of security, and prepare for aggressive actions. Consequently, trust in the Trump administration has been severely undermined.
At the same time, the Iranian side is analysing the sentiments within American society, public dissatisfaction with Trump’s Middle East policy, and the growing criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, which became the catalyst for two conflicts with Iran. Increasing numbers of Americans do not wish to see the war continue under Israeli pressure. In Washington’s public statements, the intensity of calls on Iran to abandon its missile programme and surrender enriched uranium has diminished. None of these features or shifts in American behaviour have gone unnoticed in Iran.
The American Toss-Up Between Peace and War
President Trump’s return from China clarified nothing regarding the Iranian conflict in an obvious way. Even the most ardently pro-government media, such as Fox News, have begun reminding Trump of the miscalculations in the Iranian campaign. Nevertheless, the American leader refuses to acknowledge any misjudgements or mistakes and continues to claim that the US military is capable of delivering a devastating and decisive blow to Iran within two or three days, including the large-scale destruction of all energy infrastructure, communications, and vital facilities, and perhaps even the seizure of enriched uranium, thereby forcing Tehran into surrender. Following his three-day visit to China, Trump stated that he had declined Beijing’s assistance in resolving the Iranian issue.
Across the region, hundreds of American special forces personnel remain on standby awaiting orders for a limited ground operation. The jury is out on whether it would constitute an amphibious assault on Iranian islands and coastal territories or an invasion launched from bordering states. One thing, however, is clear: Iran is preparing for every possible scenario.
Meanwhile, in recent weeks, political and media discourse has increasingly focused on the possibility of a new military conflict in the region. This concerns a potential military coalition involving France, Greece, and Israel against Turkey. In turn, the United Kingdom, appealing to Iranian drone attacks on its military bases in Cyprus, has urgently redeployed additional naval units to the island. The issue of the vast oil and gas reserves in the waters of the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas could become a pretext for igniting yet another flashpoint, with attention subsequently shifting from Iran to Turkey.
It appears, therefore, that Israel, in alliance with the United States and the United Kingdom, is becoming the principal puppeteer in the realms of the Middle Eastern security order, where war serves as a means of undermining the stable development of the region’s key states, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Turkey, with the ultimate objective of establishing maritime and overland control over major international transit routes and markets.
Turkey has declared such sentiments among its NATO allies unacceptable and insists that various forms of anti-Turkish conspiracy are doomed to failure. At the SAHA–2026 Turkish defence industry exhibition held in Istanbul on 5 May, according to the TV channel Haber 7, Turkey announced the successful testing of the Yıldırımhan intercontinental ballistic missile, which could be translated from Turkish as “Thunder Khan”. Its range is said to be up to 6,000 kilometers, its speed between Mach 9 and Mach 25, and its warhead weight up to three tones.
Iran appreciates Turkey’s restraint in the realms of the conflict with the United States and Israel, as well as President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s firm position against involvement in what he describes as the Zionist regime’s provocative war. Accordingly, Tehran may support Ankara in any confrontation with an Israel-West coalition.
Alexander Svarants is a PhD in Politics, professor, specialist in Turkish studies, and expert on Middle Eastern countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment