Trump’s unilateral approach ...
Page 1
Given the strategic relations between Tehran and Moscow and Russia’s standing in international affairs, how will Putin’s direct involvement in conveying Iran’s message affect the Trump administration’s calculations? Could this role increase the cost of disregarding Iran’s positions and pave the way for a more realistic political solution?
The defining feature of the Trump administration is that it wants to resolve its dispute with Iran directly and on its own. Unlike Obama, Trump does not believe in a collective approach or the P5+1 framework, and he has also sidelined Europe. If Europe is not at the negotiating table, Russia is certainly not going to be given such a role.
The Trump administration is characterized by unilateralism. Trump argues that the dispute is between Tehran and Washington and that the United States does not need anyone’s help. Either Iran will willingly accept Washington’s demands, or American military and economic power is sufficient for the United States to force Iran to surrender on its own.
Given this logic and approach, I am not very optimistic that the Russians will be able to untangle the problem for us.
Nevertheless, diplomacy remains ongoing. Even during a war, diplomacy continues. War itself is also part of the same diplomatic process. When the parties fail to achieve their desired objectives, they resort to war in the hope that it will give them greater leverage to impose their demands through diplomacy.
Under the current circumstances, unfortunately, the balance has shifted much more heavily toward war than toward an agreement.
I do not subscribe to the notion of a war-versus-negotiations dichotomy, because negotiations are already taking place. If there is a dichotomy, it is between reaching an agreement and going to war.
So far, the Americans have imposed two major wars on Iran without achieving their objectives. It is possible that they could impose a third war and still fail to achieve what they want. But negotiations are continuing.