The US President Donald Trump’s quick rejection of the new Iranian proposal did not come as a surprise, as the U.S. administration’s position does not align with Tehran’s demands. The widening gap reflects the priorities of the Iranian leadership and the beneficiary class, which are largely disconnected from the daily economic suffering of approximately 91 million Iranian citizens. As a result, the situation with the Iranian regime remains unchanged - neither war nor peace.
The regime is busy conducting local media campaigns claiming major victories and circulating narratives of alleged U.S. setbacks, while developments on the ground present a different reality. I had previously stated that the Iranian regime is stalling negotiations to wear down its opponents, as was the case with the administration of former U.S. President Barack Obama in 2013, leading up to the agreement reached in 2015.
However, as soon as the agreement was signed and some of the frozen funds were released, the Iranian regime rushed to increase uranium enrichment and directed resources toward its proxies in the region. Both actions were viewed as highly dangerous, contributing to a series of attacks on Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia, carried out by the Houthis. This led US allies to adopt positions that were inconsistent with shared interests. As a result, Obama’s second term witnessed a cooling in relations with Gulf states. With the beginning of President Donald Trump’s first term, this silly game was halted. Measures were taken to restrict financial flows to Iran, along with the withdrawal from the nuclear agreement.
Trump believed from the outset that the Tehran regime was incapable of escaping its medieval mindset, and sought to extend its influence throughout the Arab region, which it views as part of its strategic sphere of influence. Iran’s delaying tactics will not benefit it and are unlikely to alter the United States’ position. The US has chosen not to be bitten twice by the same snake, especially since the Tehran regime has caused a global economic crisis. Here, we must recall what happened in the final years of the reign of the Shah of Iran, when he attempted to exert pressure on global markets by raising oil prices. At that time, the United States, France, and the United Kingdom had no option but to agree on removing him.
Some believed at the time that Khomeini’s regime could act as the region’s policeman, but the opposite occurred. It transformed into a terrorist state, and the magic backfired. As a result, the international community sought to curb the Iranian regime’s power without using force. However, Iran entered into an eight-year war with Iraq, which triggered a global economic crisis when the price of a barrel of oil soared to nearly $40.
This resulted in losses estimated at around one trillion dollars for the global economy, in addition to the losses suffered by Iran and Iraq, estimated at one trillion and one hundred billion dollars at the time. Undoubtedly, this has contributed to numerous regional and international crises, the effects of which the world continues to suffer today, in addition to the losses to the global economy resulting from the recent war.
The Iranian regime is betting that the recent war could serve as a lifeline, but this is unlikely under President Trump, who stated that “the war file is my responsibility, and Iran will not receive the funds it received in 2015.” In the recent war, the international community observed that Iran no longer possesses the level of power it once used to threaten the world, particularly after the June war last year, which included strikes on nuclear-related sites. Therefore, Iran deliberately targeted its neighboring countries because it cannot harm the United States and Israel. Iran ignored the fact that attacking its neighbors would lead to its complete regional isolation and exacerbate its internal regime’s crisis. These factors suggest that the end of the war could be interpreted as the beginning of a popular uprising against the regime. This is why Iran is stalling in the negotiations.
