A “non-war” that is also “non-peace”. Paradoxical, indecipherable, but also the most precise definition of reality until the resounding announcement of what could be defined as a “no agreement.”
Masud Pezeshkián defined as “no war and no peace” the situation that existed until what was intended to end the conflict was announced, although it could be eternalized as the Korean armistice of 1953.
From the limited power conferred on him by the Persian theocracy, the president struggled to get out of the situation that paralyzed the economy and rapidly impoverished the population. Along with Pezeshkián, Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, the influential head of the Majlis (parliament) who is a couple of steps closer to the warlike fanaticism of the commanders of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, was also concerned about the need for economic reactivation.
This powerful corporation of fanatics wanted to fully maintain the prevailing situation, convinced that it benefited the Iranian regime more than the White House. A visible advantage in Donald Trump’s undisguised anxiety to end the conflict as soon as possible.
He could be seen wandering erratically looking for an emergency exit and, before any hint of understanding, he would announce with great fanfare an agreement that was immediately denied by the ayatollah regime or pulverized by an Israeli bombing in Lebanon.}
Too eager to end the war, Trump made it clear that military superiority does not compensate for his political weakness to maintain a conflict situation where there is no possibility of capitulation of the regime or its complete destruction. And those objectives proclaimed with complete certainty that they would be achieved in two or three weeks are the parameter of victory that would justify having entered this war pushed by Netanyahu.
The regime’s hawks wanted to fully exploit this political weakness that renders the military superiority of the United States useless. The longer the “no war and no peace” that required maintaining the costly North American naval deployment became, the more eager Trump would become to find an end point and, therefore, the fewer demands he would make on the regime to cease military actions and begin negotiations towards a definitive peace agreement.
The limit point of this Iranian pressure to extend its victory over what Ayatollah Khomeini called the “Great Satan” is close to the November legislative election. Once that limit point has been passed and the Democratic majority in both chambers has been secured, the head of the White House, spiteful and lost for lost, could order an attack of apocalyptic devastation to take revenge on his Iranian executioners.
For Pezeshkián and the political wing urged to restart oil exports and reactivate the paralyzed Iranian economy, it was already enough and was more than enough to claim victory. But the Islamic Revolution Guards wanted to further exploit Trump’s political weakness and his inexorable clash with the leader who led him to this war, ensuring him a devastating and total victory in record time: Benjamin Netanyahu.
Why did Shiite hawks end up accepting the ceasefire and the start of negotiations towards a peace agreement? To some extent, because the North American threat to occupy the island of Kharg, which is the source that loads tankers with Iranian oil for export, seemed like a coup de grace. But mainly, the Iranian generalate was defeated by pressure from China.
By welcoming Trump in Beijing and making him feel insignificant in the shadow of the Asian giant, Xi Jinping agreed to help him get out of the labyrinth in which he was wandering lost and where his electoral vigor was dangerously liquefying. In addition, the conflict also had its negative impact on China’s economy and energy production, although the American loss gave Xi an instrument to pressure his visitor to stop sending weapons to Taiwan and for a truce in the tariff war declared by the head of the White House.
That is why the world heard the resounding announcement of the agreement that imposed the cessation of hostilities from the mouth of Shehbhaz Sharif, the prime minister of Pakistan, who is the Chinese regime’s piece on the fiery board of the Middle East.
What has been agreed does not guarantee sustainability over time. Furthermore, it failed to include key issues in the resolution of the conflict. That is why “no war and no peace” led to a “no agreement,” an oxymoron that helped Trump find an emergency exit but guaranteed little or nothing regarding balance in the region. The regime was neither destroyed nor capitulated. The only thing that momentarily resolved the “no agreement” is the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
But the blocking of that passage was a problem created by the war. Iran had never closed that oil jugular. The war started by Netanyahu and Trump showed him this formidable instrument and, with it, took the global economy and particularly the North American economy hostage.
Trump feigns insanity by presenting the unlocking of Hormuz as a victory. The world sees something else. The New York Times summarized it categorically: “it is a humiliating defeat” of the New York magnate and his ultra-conservative government.
That the war ends with a victory for the criminal and obscurantist regime of the Persian ayatollahs is confirmed by the clash between Trump and Netanyahu.
The Israeli prime minister wanted to continue the conflict until the regime was destroyed or unconditional surrender was imposed. That alone serves to strengthen him in the political scene of his country. But the “no deal” that Trump uses as an emergency exit does not even guarantee Iran’s renunciation of its nuclear program or the destruction of its ballistic missile arsenal. Nor does it mention Tehran’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas.
To make matters worse, the world heard the New York tycoon calling him “crazy as hell,” saying that he saved him from going to jail for corruption and that, because of him, “the world hates Israel.” If something was missing, Trump shouted it after the last Israeli bombing before agreeing to this truce: “if Netanyahu can’t handle Hezbollah without killing everyone, we will entrust that issue to Syria.”
No one would have imagined until a few weeks ago that they would ever hear an American president elevate a former Al Qaeda commander, Syrian leader Ahmed al Sharaa.
If this were to happen, the power that intervened militarily in Lebanon supporting pro-Iranian Shiism between 1976 and 2005 would now return but with the opposite mission: to destroy Hezbolla.
Hilarious, yes, but many things are hilarious in the region where Trump got lost in the labyrinth of “no war and no peace” from which he escaped with a “no agreement.”
Image gallery
