Tweet Disematkan

The stalling of the peace talks is about more than a dispute over peace terms and sequencing. The United States appears to have softened its position on the nuclear issue. It is no longer simply demanding immediate zero enrichment in the crudest sense. Yet that flexibility has not produced a breakthrough. Iran has not reopened Hormuz, has not separated Lebanon from the settlement, and has not signalled a broader change in regional behaviour.
That matters because it confirms the war was never solely about the nuclear programme. The nuclear issue remains central because Iran is unwilling to modify its strategic doctrine, which the war was intended to alter. Indeed, Iran now appears less like a state seeking accommodation with the United States and more like one that still sees itself as part of a rival regional and geopolitical project—the BRICS. That is why it treats the nuclear file, Hormuz, and its allied fronts as linked. The United States, in turn, is not merely seeking technical concessions. It is trying to force Iran to undergo a behavioural transformation, but cannot impose its terms. It can raise costs and threaten escalation, but it cannot reopen Hormuz or force Iran to change sides.
This is why the stalemate matters. The talks stalled because the conflict is now centred on a clash of doctrines. The most likely outcome is that Iran survives through deterrence, with a limited settlement to dilute the weapons-threshold uranium stockpile inside Iran and a moratorium on its enrichment programme, but not the right.
researchgate.net/publication/40…
English
























