:
In the midst of the escalation of American proposals circulating in the media about the possibility of opening negotiation channels with Iran, which include a package of expensive and variable conditions, question marks are increasing about the seriousness of this path, and whether it is actually a prelude to real negotiations or just a tool for political and media maneuvering.
Writer and political analyst Fadi Boudia explained that there is a popular Lebanese proverb that says: “Whoever does not want to marry his daughter will be called a bastard,” pointing out that setting extremely difficult conditions for any negotiations makes them almost impossible. He added that any negotiations require two basic rules for starting: first, that the conditions be negotiable, and second, that there be mutual acceptance by both parties.
He pointed out that the conditions proposed by Trump, which range from fifteen to twenty conditions and are increasing steadily, have not been accepted in Iran, and do not find any resonance within it, stressing that they will not be responded to in official Iranian institutions, and that there is no desire to go to negotiations, and therefore the two basic elements of any negotiations are not available.
He pointed out that Iranian officials at various military, security, political and diplomatic levels have repeatedly confirmed that there are no negotiations with the United States yet, considering that Trump’s statements about negotiating with the Iranians are baseless, asking: Who is negotiating? According to Trump, the “good” people do not exist in Iran, as if he is negotiating with himself, and he added that this reminds of a state of “deja vu,” that is, the feeling of repeating a scene of negotiations that do not exist.
Boudia believes that Trump has mastered the art of deception and media maneuvering, noting that he announced that he would not strike an energy facility and gave a five-day deadline, then suddenly carried out the strike when the deadline expired, wondering how Iran can have confidence in going to negotiations in light of these practices.
He pointed out that Iran had previously entered negotiations in 2015 within the framework of the nuclear agreement sponsored by the Sultanate of Oman, but was later shocked by American policies, stressing that there is no ground for negotiation at the present time. He added that there are contacts from some countries such as Turkey, Oman, Egypt and Pakistan to create space and ground to calm tension, but Iran did not respond to any demand except according to its own equation.
But on the other hand, he warns that there is an open line of communication between the Iranian leadership and the Russian leadership at all military, political and security levels, explaining that Russia is taking a clearer and more frank position, because it realizes that a war on Iran may also be a war against it, and that any fall of Iran will be a prelude to besieging Russia later.
He believes that the current global scene portends a major explosion, pointing out that there are multiple possibilities for the course of the war: either the war will end without an agreement and each party will continue with the rules of engagement, or it will end with negotiations according to the Iranian vision and with Russian participation, or the war will expand and turn into a limited global conflict.
He stressed that Trump does not want to emerge defeated from this war, warning of the danger of having a nuclear arsenal in the hands of an unbalanced man, noting that any feeling of defeat may lead to a repetition of a scenario similar to what happened in Japan in the past.
He believes that there are multiple scenarios and it is not possible to provide a single reading due to the changing circumstances of the war. He stopped at the news related to the imminent arrival of American forces to the region, as if the United States wanted to launch a ground war against Iran. He wondered about the results of such an operation and whether America would bear the capture or killing of its soldiers, and what the repercussions of this would be on the region.
He stressed that, according to the current path, the possibilities of escalation are higher than the possibilities of negotiation, and that Trump seeks to delude the world with the media of victory, regardless of the reality of the field achievements, as the Iranian regime did not fall, the launching of missiles was not stopped, and the nuclear program was not destroyed. He added that everything Trump does in the media seems like an “imaginary victory.”
He pointed out that the escalation continues daily, with the emergence of new equations, and that there are great fears of the involvement of Arab countries in the war, but he saw that it is in the interest of these countries not to intervene directly, and he explained that some countries did not refuse publicly, and others acquiesced implicitly at a minimum, indicating that the war continues with different balances, with the presence of European participation in the region, such as Germany, France, and Italy, but they did not intervene directly.
He stressed that what is happening is not a global war, but it heralds greater developments, and that the war is gradually expanding according to the interests of the countries, explaining that if the Gulf states enter the conflict, the war will become broader and more comprehensive, and will later take on a Sunni and Shiite character, which ultimately serves Israel’s greater interests.
Fadi Boudia concluded his speech by emphasizing that the current scene is very complex, and that the changing circumstances prevent the provision of a single decisive reading, while noting that the continuation of the war may lead to permanent escalation or negotiation according to Iranian standards.
