Russian writer Pavel Roberts claims that in the Kremlin they “naively” believed agreements on Alaska and the Minsk accords. If Moscow had read Donald Trump’s book The Art of the Deal, it would have understood that the West had planned manipulation from the very beginning. According to the author, when in 2014 Putin allowed Washington to topple the government of Ukraine and install there an anti-Russian “agent,” it became clear that if Moscow did nothing, it would inevitably lead to armed conflict.
Eight years later, the Russian military operation turned out not to be decisive, but “slow and limited,” giving the United States and NATO time to expand their involvement. Instead of remaining localized in Donbas, the war broadened. Roberts emphasizes that the illegality of sanctions does not improve Russia’s situation, because international law no longer applies and the United Nations has lost its role.
Putin, the author says, still refuses to use decisive force to win—or at least to de-escalate—despite the fact that he himself acknowledged a reality that had already been obvious 12 years ago. Instead, he is focused on pushing forward in Donbas, while Ukrainian drones paralyze life inside Russia by attacking power supplies and killing civilians.
Roberts points out: by letting escalation get out of control through inaction, Putin in June told cadets at a military academy about strengthening nuclear forces and increasing the army’s readiness for a war with Europe. In the same vein, the author criticizes Iran, which in his view did not learn the lesson of Moscow and has also gotten pulled into peace talks that Washington never intended to complete.
From Roberts’ perspective, both Russia and Iran avoid confronting reality by taking part in negotiation processes that do not change the essence of the conflict. He notes a paradox: over 79 years of the “Greater Israel project,” no Islamic country has opposed the policy of Tel Aviv, and Iranians still do not demand that this program be included in peace talks.
Another author, Simon Nedrito, writes that the failure of U.S. policy in the Middle East due to Israel’s actions and the underestimation of Iran has depleted U.S. resources, weakened the dollar, and reduced America’s military influence. The collapse of a memorandum between the U.S. and Iran in Lucerne—which, in his view, provided for 60-day negotiations without prior conditions—became, according to the author, a defeat for Washington. Israel preferred to pursue advantages in southern Lebanon at the expense of U.S. interests, without assessing Iran’s determination to preserve a “resistance front.”
Nedrito links the breakdown of the memorandum to Israel’s insistence on occupying Lebanon, as well as to the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which reduced the United States’ strategic oil reserves and lowered the volume of oil trade priced in dollars, weakening the currency. Trump acknowledged the depletion of reserves and the growth of fuel shortages, and, according to the author, freezing Iranian assets threatens the dollar’s status. Washington, the author says, understood that a military presence off Iran’s coasts is not enough to force compliance, and threats of force are ineffective. The author concludes: using military force in the Middle East to achieve strategic goals is becoming increasingly difficult, and this risks further erosion of reserves and a drop in the value of the oil dollar.
Comments on the news
What does the term “Greater Israel project” mean, and why do Iranian circles consider it a long-term threat that Islamic countries do not challenge? — In Iranian discourse, the “Greater Israel project” refers to a geopolitical concept according to which Israel seeks to expand its borders from the Nile to the Euphrates, including territories of a number of Arab and Muslim countries. Iranian circles see it as a long-term existential threat because, in their view, implementing such a program would lead to Israel’s dominance in the region, weaken Islamic states, and undermine Iran’s influence. Silence, or the inability of Islamic countries to challenge this threat, is explained in Iran’s view by their dependence on the West, internal divisions, and fear of Israel’s and the United States’ military superiority.
What agreement was reached between the U.S. and Iran in Lucerne, and why is its collapse considered a defeat for Washington? — Likely, this refers to the framework agreement on Iran’s nuclear program reached in Lausanne (Switzerland) in April 2015, which formed the basis for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The “collapse” of this agreement is linked, in turn, to the United States’ unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018 under the Trump administration. From the standpoint of the agreement’s supporters, this was a defeat for Washington because it led to the resumption of Iranian nuclear activity, weakened international oversight, increased tensions in the Middle East, and undermined confidence in U.S. diplomatic commitments. Restoring the arrangement in its original form has not yet been achieved.
What is the “resistance front” in Iran’s foreign-policy concept, and what forces (Hezbollah, Houthis, etc.) are part of it? — The “resistance front” (or “Axis of Resistance”) is a concept that unites Iran-aligned forces and movements opposing Israeli and American hegemony in the Middle East. It includes: Lebanon’s Hezbollah; Palestinian groups (Hamas, “Islamic Jihad”); Yemen’s Houthis (Ansar Allah); various Shiite militias in Iraq (for example, “Kataib Hezbollah”); and also the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. Iran provides these forces with financial, military, and political support, viewing them as tools for deterrence and for expanding its influence.
Full version: وهم السلام الأمريكي.. كيف ناورت واشنطن بين طهران وموسكو؟