TEHRAN Lets say we choose to work out with Trump under todays situations.
Heres whats likely to take place: First, the U.S.
and especially Israel will likely interpret this as a sign of Iranian weakness and a triumph for Netanyahus aggressive policies over the past year and a half.
Subsequently, from the really start of settlements, the needs on Iran will most likely go far beyond just the nuclear issue.Because the opposite will think their pressure tactics are working, theyll likely increase that pressure even while negotiating.
Even now, while Trump is apparently open to talks, hes already been working for over a month to cripple Irans oil sales and considerably cut its profits.
The language of negotiation and the reality of pressure will be firmly intertwined.Therefore, at this phase, consenting to formal, public settlements offers no genuine advantage.
It just confirms their pressure technique and encourages them to escalate it.
If they believe they can dictate Irans nationwide security decisions through pressure, the settlements are essentially doomed from the outset.Moreover, entering settlements under these scenarios means we can anticipate uncommonly aggressive pressure techniques like those laid out in Trumps nationwide security memo.
The understanding that Iran is deteriorated and ripe for submission will make authentic bargaining impossible.
Theyll essentially be requiring a ransom.Especially in this circumstance, anticipating any meaningful easing of sanctions is impractical.
If our adversaries believe sanctions brought Iran to the table, why would they reduce them? Would not it make more sense for them to intensify sanctions to force Irans surrender throughout settlements? Accepting negotiations under these conditions completely weakens any validation for sanctions relief.And we know what comes next.
The Israelis will argue that their previous method was appropriate and they need to complete the task.
Subsequently, theyll certainly press Trump to set exceptionally rigid terms for settlements requiring far more while using even less.
This is the same video game theyve been playing all along.At the exact same time, a significant video game will play out internally in Iran.
Individuals will wait to see the outcome of the settlements, which will likely stall most economic activity.
Some officials, assuming an arrangement is an inevitable conclusion, will likely put their work on hold and instead lobby for an offer, arguing that the country cant work without one.What will be the outcome? We get in negotiations only to find absolutely nothing to settle on.
Instead of recognizing our excellent faith, the opposite sees us as weak and susceptible.
Officials disregard their responsibilities, and the population remains in a state of ineffective anticipation.
Is this what we really want?Of course, things might get back at worse.
When public anxiety and the expectations of authorities reach a critical point, some might begin considering even riskier methods.
Under those scenarios, there are definitely people in America and Israel who will argue that a significant military or security strike might force Irans total submission during settlements.
Is that not a logical next action in their minds?Im not claiming this analysis is entirely precise, however the reality is that it lines up more carefully with our previous experiences than any other situation one can envision.
Do some individuals think this time will be different? If so, they require to provide a convincing case.
I have not seen one yet.