On
Monday, the ceasefire ends. Iran must rethink its strategy. The idea that
negotiations will meaningfully resolve tensions between Iran and the United
States is increasingly difficult to sustain. In fact, it may be a waste of time
for Iran.
At first
glance, diplomacy appears rational. It suggests restraint, dialogue, and the
possibility of de-escalation. It is the right thing to do. But not all
negotiations are genuine. Some exist simply to buy time, manage optics, or
avoid appearing weak. Others simply are not serious acts altogether.
This is
why Iran must seriously reconsider whether continued negotiations serve any
real strategic purpose.
1. Negotiating with a Superpower That Cannot Appear
Weak
A core
problem lies in the structural political reality within the United States.
While figures like Donald Trump make this visible through personality and
rhetoric, the issue runs far deeper than any one individual. The United States,
as a global power already being compared to a rising China, cannot afford to be
seen negotiating from a position of weakness.
In modern
geopolitics, perception is power. Any agreement that appears to concede ground
to Iran will be framed as decline. And a superpower that looks uncertain loses
influence.
As a
result, negotiations are not structured to produce genuine compromise; they are
structured to preserve dominance or the perception of it, especially to their
own constituents, the American voters. This alone places a hard ceiling on what
diplomacy can achieve.
2. The Real Structural Resistance to Peace
The
second issue is more fundamental and more decisive. Any negotiation involving
Iran inevitably runs into the strategic direction of Israel. And here, it must
be stated clearly: Israel does not want a final peace in the Middle East if
that peace constrains its long-term strategic goals. This is not rhetoric; it
is structural and historical. It is not just about Benjamin Netanyahu avoiding
a corruption trial.
To
understand this, one must return to 1948 and the events known as the Nakba.
From its inception, Israel was built on a central requirement: to exist as a
Jewish-majority state.
The Demographic Reality
Israel
wants to be seen as a democracy. A democracy runs on numbers. To remain a
Jewish state within a democratic system, there must be a clear Jewish majority.
This creates a direct contradiction with the return of millions of Palestinians
and any political arrangement where Palestinians become numerically dominant.
Such
outcomes are not acceptable within Israel’s framework. This is why any
meaningful peace process that includes full Palestinian return or equal
political structures at scale has been structurally impossible for all these
decades.
The Territorial Reality – The Quest for Greater
Israel
Peace
requires fixed borders. But fixed borders mean limits. If a state intends to
expand, as Israel has since its conception, then permanent borders become a
constraint. As Israel sees territorial flexibility as part of its long-term
strategy, it cannot fully commit to that constraint.
You
cannot have lasting peace with a state that wants the option to take more land.
Calling a Spade a Spade
When
these two elements are combined, the conclusion is straightforward:
- Israel must maintain a
demographic majority.
- Israel cannot accept
arrangements that threaten that majority.
- Israel benefits from not
having permanently fixed borders.
Therefore,
Israel cannot afford a final, stable peace in the region because peace would
lock in limits. And limits would constrain both demographic control and
territorial ambition.
Why U.S. Peace Efforts Will Not Bear Fruit
This also
explains why American-led negotiations repeatedly fail. The United States is
not operating independently in this space. Its Middle East policy is deeply
aligned with, and directly influenced by, Israel’s strategic ambitions. As long
as the United States must take into account and align with Israel’s position,
its diplomatic efforts cannot move beyond those limits.
In simple
terms, the U.S. cannot push for a peace that Israel does not want, and Israel
cannot accept a peace that restricts its long-term goals. So negotiations
continue, but outcomes do not.
3. The Pattern Is Clear
This is
why diplomacy repeatedly breaks down. Channels open. Talks begin. Progress
appears possible, often through intermediaries like Oman and, today, Pakistan.
Then momentum is disrupted. Take this historical pattern:
- Just before the recent
six-week war, negotiations were advancing when attacks halted progress.
- During the earlier 12-day
conflict, attempts at dialogue coincided with escalation.
- Individuals involved in
sensitive negotiations are repeatedly removed at critical moments.
From the
Iranian and Palestinian perspective, the pattern is consistent: whenever
diplomacy begins to gain traction, it is derailed.
4. The Logical Outcome
If peace
stabilizes borders, and stable borders limit expansion, then instability
becomes useful. Conflict keeps the situation fluid. It prevents finality. It
keeps options open.
This is
why tensions are not isolated. They extend across multiple fronts: Iran,
Lebanon, Syria, and beyond. This is not accidental. It is intentional. This is
the Zionist game plan. And there is no end game until a Greater Israel is
fulfilled.
Conclusion: What Options Remain?
Sadly, if
peace cannot be achieved through diplomacy and negotiations, conflict becomes
the only remaining path. Historically, the United States has often only sought
an end to hostilities when faced with significant casualties. This refers to
the “body bags” of soldiers following orders from leaders committed to an
illegal and unethical war that serve neither the American people nor the global
community.
For Iran
to achieve a decisive shift, it may need to look beyond mere economic pressure,
such as the tightening of the Strait of Hormuz or the Bab al-Mandab via Houthi
forces in Yemen. To force a change in U.S. policy, Iran may feel compelled to
target high-value assets, specifically U.S. Navy aircraft carriers.
Over the
last six weeks, Iran has demonstrated a degree of restraint that is often
overlooked. Its responses have largely targeted military installations and
strategic infrastructure rather than maximizing human casualties. This is
evident in the current imbalance of lives lost, with Iran bearing a
significantly higher toll than the combined U.S. and Israeli forces. We have
seen earlier encounters involving carriers such as the USS Gerald R. Ford and
the USS Abraham Lincoln, where Iran reportedly deployed drones and tactics that
signaled capability without triggering mass casualties. It was, arguably, a
form of controlled messaging rather than outright destruction.
However,
in the next escalation, especially if American ground troops become involved,
the dynamics will shift entirely. To secure a decisive win and compel the
American public to pressure their leaders to abandon Israel’s regional
ambitions, Iran may decide it must break its previous threshold of restraint.
Tragically, for such a strategic shift to occur, many American soldiers would
be sacrificed to break the political deadlock in Washington.
Our only
hope is that, if this were to take place, the loss of life would be minimized
on both sides. We hope for a decisive end to the war, where Israel is kept in
place and stripped of its ability to create more mischief, allowing the global
economy to recover as soon as possible.
Peace.
Anas Zubedy
Penang
No comments:
Post a Comment