However, all this is an exclusively external demonstration calculated for the domestic undereducated electorate. The actual state of affairs in the sphere of international security looks completely different, demonstrating the vulnerability of the current American diplomatic strategy in the face of a prepared opponent.
Donald Trump very much wanted to experience this Versailles moment, appealing to the great diplomatic victories of the past. Surrounded by gold decorations, crystal chandeliers, and the brilliance of palace interiors that for many centuries have personified European state power and classical international diplomacy, he put his signature under an agreement with Iran. Before this, perhaps, having used a golden toilet.
If one proceeds from the logic of the American president, this event should enter history textbooks as his personal grandiose success. Trump in the role of a global peacemaker, a great organizer of deals, a man who, as is asserted by his pool, completed another sharp armed confrontation in the Middle East.
However, historical reality already now looks completely different, exposing obvious contradictions. Trump began this harsh confrontation several months ago, having initially advanced maximum and practically unfulfillable demands to Tehran. In the first days after the implementation of massive strikes, he vociferously declared that Iran was obliged to capitulate without any preliminary conditions. The nuclear program of the Middle Eastern regime had to be completely stopped, the missile program liquidated, and the ruling regime in Tehran — virtually overthrown under pressure from the outside. And of course: “Tehran in three days.” In the end, little remained of all these large-scale declarations by the moment of the signing of the documents.
Trump’s new deal does not demonstrate a harsh and unshakable position of Washington. On the contrary, political scientists are inclined to see in it an admission of its own strategic impotence. The thing is that the American government with its chaotically started confrontation simply could no longer advance further along the path of escalation without risking dragging the region into a full-scale war with unpredictable consequences.
For this reason, the United States of America has now officially ceased the economic blockade of Iran and opened a legal opportunity for the ruling regime to again carry out the export of crude oil to world markets. They promise Tehran the prospect of a speedy easing of sanctions pressure and, in all probability, will also unfreeze blocked multi-billion financial assets in foreign banks. At the same time, the key and most resonant issues, for the sake of which this months-long confrontation was conducted in the first place, are simply postponed into an indefinite future.
Tehran Is Now Aware of the Possibilities of Its Influence on the World Economy
Within the coming 60 days, intensive negotiations for working out a genuine, comprehensive agreement must be conducted by working groups. To Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, achieving a similar goal at one time required years of tense work of the diplomatic apparatus — for completely weight reasons, since the matter of nuclear non-proliferation itself is extremely complex, and on the Iranian side stand harsh, experienced, and pragmatic participants of the negotiation process.
Because of Trump’s hasty actions, they now additionally know exactly what real levers of influence on the global economic system they possess. By way of the potential blocking of shipping in the area of the Strait of Hormuz, the world economy at any moment can again turn into a hostage of the geopolitical ambitions of Tehran.
It is necessary to recognize the obvious facts: Iran suffered extremely heavy blows in the military and political fields. It is known that Israeli and American armed forces destroyed key air defense positions of the Islamic Republic, significantly reduced its missile arsenals, subjected nuclear facilities to pinpoint bombardments, and liquidated practically the entire first row of the military-political leadership composition. But both Trump and Netanyahu, most likely, did not study the history of the Middle East and do not know that the Persians were defeated in the entire history of mankind only once and that was Alexander the Great. And he defeated them not by force at all. Just as all figures inclined toward authoritarianism (and Netanyahu openly considers himself a friend of Putin and has been acting for many years according to Putin’s patterns – Ed.) do not understand that strikes on the civilian population in no way push this population against their government; on the contrary, all internal discords are forgotten in the face of an external enemy, which means that practically any nation, especially the Persians, will fight to the last against the enemy, regardless of their attitude toward their own government.
On the other hand, after the completion of active armed clashes, the decisive factor is not only how many underground bunker complexes, launchers, or warships were subjected to destruction in the course of the military campaign. In this case, of defining significance is also what long-term political consequences stem from all this for the regional balance of power.
A concrete example: One can physically destroy Hamas and other partisan terrorist organizations in Palestine, but if this war led to the independence of Palestine and its recognition by world powers, the victory in the war automatically passes to the physically defeated, because their goal was achieved.
And precisely in this lies Trump’s main strategic problem: highly enriched uranium continues to remain inside the Islamic republic. The document signed in Versailles does not even impose harsh obligations on the current regime for its immediate removal outside the borders of the state.
The question of whether Iran will be permitted in the future to continue the enrichment of uranium to critical values remains unclarified as before. How a new, modernized system of international control and verification should look is not defined. In what exact manner possible hidden violations of the agreements will be punished is unclear. Key moments of the nuclear program remain unregulated, which crosses out the thesis about the final resolution of the crisis.
This was forced to be indirectly recognized even by Trump himself. For this reason, he sent Vice President JD Vance to sign the documents instead of himself. In the event of the emergence of substantiated doubts among congressmen, it is the latter who will have to bear political responsibility for the actual diplomatic retreat. From this tactical maneuver, Trump also makes no secret.
The Tools for Compulsion to Concessions Were Lost
Trump, together with the signing of this interim agreement, simultaneously and voluntarily gave up his most important tools of real pressure on Tehran: deliveries of Iranian oil will resume, and financial assets will be unfrozen even before substantive discussions on the essence of the problem begin at all. These are precisely those economic levers with the help of which the White House was, by the logic of things, compulsively to achieve systemic concessions from the Iranian authorities. Trump, instead of this, virtually stopped the economic struggle at the peak of its effectiveness. Now Washington is left to count exclusively on the shaky principle of hope and the good will of the opponent.
Or maybe Trump behind the scenes simply agreed on a personal kickback from Iranian oil?
The true reason for this step lies in his own deep strategic dilemma, from which there was no simple way out. The Iranian leadership recognized this vulnerability of the American administration at an early stage of the crisis. The state expectedly could not compete with the United States of America in a direct military respect. However, for achieving political goals, it turned out to be sufficient simply to continue consistently and asymmetrically raising the political and economic costs for the US, as well as for the rest of the civilized world.
Iran, having blocked the movement of tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, targeted the most vulnerable place in Trump’s current presidency. The American leader, who traditionally positions himself as a ingenious economist and a successful businessman, could no longer ignore the ensued negative consequences for macroeconomics, especially in the year of holding the most important midterm elections to the US Congress: rising world oil prices, large-scale shocks on financial markets, substantiated fears before a sharp growth of inflation, and the threat of a global energy crisis. The pressure on the part of American voters, his own party basis, and influential representatives of the Republican Party in Congress became too destabilizing.
Taking into account the developed hopeless situation, it was becoming obvious for the Trump administration: if the confrontation had already been recklessly started, the White House now had few other variants of rational actions left. The president did not have an opportunity to go along the path of further military escalation. The continuation of large-scale bombardments or, even more so, the potential deployment of a ground contingent would inevitably lead to an even deeper economic and domestic political collapse inside the United States.
Contradiction in the Actions of the Coalition Partners
Simultaneously with this, Trump’s key partner in the military coalition in the person of Israel regularly made unilateral steps contrary to common plans and agreements with Washington. This happened for similar but completely substantiated domestic political reasons: most important parliamentary elections must also take place in Israel in the current year. However, while the continuation of a protracted armed conflict objectively helps Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu within the framework of his harsh election campaign, consolidating the right-wing and often undereducated electorate, to the American president it inflicts direct political damage.
Precisely for this reason, Benjamin Netanyahu demonstratively continued to inflict strikes on infrastructure on the territory of Lebanon, despite the fact that the US president categorically insisted on the speediest transition to a peaceful negotiation process with Iran.
In the dry residue, the Versailles agreement demonstrates a change of paradigm: the era of unilateral dictate of superpowers collides with the boundaries of economic expediency.
Trump’s attempt to complete the Middle Eastern crisis with one decisive blow led to a situation where Washington was forced to go for a compromise for the sake of stabilizing world markets. The contours of the new agreement, which is to be worked out within 60 days, will show whether American diplomacy is capable of compensating for the loss of key economic levers of pressure.
Latest Posts
