An Analysis of the US-Iran Negotiations at the Brink
Regarding the ongoing negotiations between the United States and Israel, we have already stated that discussions with Iran will primarily concern the Iranian nuclear program, ballistic missile capabilities, and support for Iranian proxies in Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, and elsewhere in the Middle East.
It had been confirmed that these were indeed the demands of the United States during the meeting in Abu Dhabi. These terms are obviously unacceptable to Iran, as they would completely neuter the country and leave it with no credible deterrence.
This time, Iran is taking a more aggressive stance and has repeatedly stated it will not accept any "symbolic strikes" as it has in the past. Iran has already prepared the public for possible air strikes on its urban centres. In Tehran, the local municipality has designated metro stations and concrete parking lots as improvised bunkers in case of war.
This most likely indicates that Iran views the current military posture, combined with severe militant unrest domestically, as an existential threat to its governance and perhaps even its territorial integrity, particularly regarding the fragmentation of separatist regions such as Baluchistan, the Arab-majority regions in the southwest, and the Kurdish regions in the northwest.
The only player who would truly profit from a direct war between the US and Iran would be Israel. Netanyahu wants to seal a final deal, having broken the de facto siege by the so-called 'Axis of Resistance'—comprised of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria under President Bashar al-Assad—the regional hegemonic struggle is nearing a final showdown.
Regarding the ongoing negotiations between the United States and Israel, we have already stated that discussions with Iran will primarily concern the Iranian nuclear program, ballistic missile capabilities, and support for Iranian proxies in Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, and elsewhere in the Middle East. It had been confirmed that these were indeed the demands of the United States during the meeting in Abu Dhabi. These terms are obviously unacceptable to Iran, as they would completely neuter the country and leave it with no credible deterrence.
This time, Iran is taking a more aggressive stance and has repeatedly stated it will not accept any "symbolic strikes" as it has in the past. Iran has already prepared the public for possible air strikes on its urban centres. In Tehran, the local municipality has designated metro stations and concrete parking lots as improvised bunkers in case of war. This most likely indicates that Iran views the current military posture, combined with severe militant unrest domestically, as an existential threat to its governance and perhaps even its territorial integrity, particularly regarding the fragmentation of separatist regions such as Baluchistan, the Arab-majority regions in the southwest, and the Kurdish regions in the northwest.
The Arab states have lobbied the US to return to the negotiation table with Iran, this time in Oman, focusing solely on nuclear issues and scrapping the demands on ballistic missiles and proxy support. However, following the first round of talks in Oman, President Trump signed an executive order imposing 25% tariffs on any country "doing business" with Iran, which does not indicate any particular progress. Arab states are fully aware that in the event of a regional war, they would also be struck, including their oil infrastructure, by Iranian ballistic missiles. They have already withdrawn permission for their sovereign territory to be used as a staging ground for strikes against Iran, fearing precisely such retaliation.
The only player who would truly profit from a direct war between the US and Iran would be Israel. Netanyahu wants to seal a final deal, having broken the de facto siege by the so-called 'Axis of Resistance'—comprised of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria under President Bashar al-Assad—the regional hegemonic struggle is nearing a final showdown. After effectively neutralizing many of Hamas and Hezbollah's capabilities and supporting the effort to topple Bashar al-Assad, the siege has been lifted, and the balance of power has shifted heavily in Israel's favour. Netanyahu understands that as long as he is in power, and with Trump in office, this is Israel's only real chance to fulfil its final ambition: to either topple the Iranian government or fragment it into several nations.
In the event of a regional war leading to Iran's fragmentation, the European Union should prepare for a refugee wave far larger than what it absorbed during the height of the Syrian Civil War. The already agitated political landscape would receive another shock treatment, leading to another surge of support for right-wing, mostly EU-sceptic parties, which would sabotage further centralization and federalization ambitions. It remains completely unclear what coherent strategy the EU has, other than blindly following the United States in this regard. The little leverage the EU possessed was discarded when it designated the IRGC as a terrorist organization on January 29th. Even in the case of a "clean" ‘regime change’, the direct benefits to the EU would be limited, extending mostly to private entities that may secure lucrative contracts if Iranian markets open up. These are meagre benefits when considering the refugee shock therapy Europe would endure from a regional war or the socio-political fragmentation of Iran. It is a risk-reward calculation no realist strategist would accept.
The negotiations will continue for now in Oman. Since the topic is only nuclear issues, Israel has already made clear that as long as the "ballistic missile threat" remains, it will never accept the status quo and is more than willing to disregard any American deal. Iran, for its part, has made clear it will never give up its only real conventional deterrent. In that regard, this diplomatic problem will sooner rather than later be continued not with pen and paper, but with fire and sword.
