The Iranian negotiator mistakenly assumes that the antiquated stratagems previously used with other counterparts can be directed at the American negotiator, believing that playing for time will secure his objectives. Such revolutionary delusions are destined to fail in the current landscape. Regardless of the claims made about his ability to reshape the situation in his favor, he is attempting to collect water in a sieve.
The prevailing international climate has fundamentally shifted from the 19th century, as seen in the negotiations with the Russians over Ashuradeh Island—a process that lasted two centuries with seven years of daily sessions, which did not yield any resolution. Even if the Soviet Union ceded the small island after getting weary of the protracted dialogue, the Qajar dynasty had already been forced to surrender the Caspian Sea, following a crushing military defeat.
A similar pattern of stagnation characterized the struggle for influence between the Persians and the Ottomans in the Middle East. A state of neither war nor peace persisted from 1514 until the outbreak of World War I in 1914. Historically, this remains one of the most protracted border disputes, consuming vast ink, paper and diplomatic resources, more than the actual munitions at various junctures. As we previously stated, international circumstances are entirely different today.
First, the strategic options of Tehran have become almost entirely ineffective. The forces currently dictating the terms of the conflict possess far greater capabilities than Tehran. The world has witnessed the extensive scale of ruin inflicted upon Iran. Second, the global community has long stood in opposition to the current regime’s pursuit of nuclear weaponry, as experience consistently demonstrated its reliance on terrorism to subdue others. Indeed, every European capital bears the bloody marks of Persian-sponsored terror.
In this regard, we recall the words of American President Donald Trump: “If Iran had a nuclear weapon, world leaders would be calling the Iranians ‘Sir’.” Third, the attempt of Iran to utilize the Strait of Hormuz as leverage against the United States of America caused severe damage to the global economy.
Tehran sought to impose its vision not only on Washington, but on the entire world as well, attempting to extort the international community into submission. However, this thuggery was neutralized by the American naval blockade. Today, the regime’s leaders realized their precarious position, especially mindful of the Venezuela example, where the state collapsed like a house of cards at the first serious American intervention.
Consequently, no matter how much the regime attempts to project a facade of strength—whether by disseminating lies regarding its ‘full force’, claiming the destruction of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, or manipulating statements from the political opponents of President Trump—this will not alter the resolute American position. This stance encompasses not only the nuclear file, but also the need to prevent future threats to the global economy through the Strait of Hormuz, in addition to decisively addressing regional proxies and the security of the Gulf states.
The typical game of the Persian carpet weaver is no longer effective against a tough American administration focused on its objectives, or against an international community, particularly the European nations, caught between the anvil of Iranian terrorism and the hammer of economic ruin. This means that any future negotiations in Islamabad or Geneva will conclude with Iran admitting its total defeat. The regime has indeed failed and it would need another 25 years for recovery, by which time it will have collapsed irreversibly.
