Trump begins a Middle East tour, bypassing Israel, and issues a warning to Iran, stating that if an agreement is not reached, an attack on its nuclear sites should be anticipated. In response, Iran mobilizes its forces for war.

Introduction

The fourth round of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States concluded on Sunday in Muscat, Oman with both parties recognizing progress but continuing to disagree on critical issues.

The discussions were characterized as “challenging but constructive,” allowing both parties to deepen their understanding of each other’s perspectives and examine practical approaches for addressing Iran’s nuclear program.

President Trump conveyed optimism regarding the discussions, stating,

“They (Iranians) are intelligently…”

Likewise, Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi noted,

“We have a better understanding of each other…”

President Trump is set to travel to the Middle East this week; his itinerary notably excludes Israel, despite receiving an invitation.

This decision suggests that the U.S. may be positioning for a potential agreement with Iran. Or war.

Iran’s Redline

Iran asserts its right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, whereas the United States demands a full cessation enrichment activities and ballistic programs.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry states that the negotiations are centered on the NPT framework and the lifting of sanctions, which it described as illegal and inhumane” imposed on the Iranian people.

Iranian lawmaker Nadergholi Ebrahimi stated,

“If the negotiations result in removal of sanctions, they should continue otherwise, we demand it be stopped and request the Supreme Leader reconsider Iran’s nuclear weapons doctrine.”

Iran’s current nuclear doctrine, rooted in a fatwa issued by Khamenei, prohibits the development and use of nuclear weapons, labeling them as “forbidden.”

Recent statements from Iranian officials indicate that their position may shift if the country’s nuclear facilities come under threat.

Last month, Ali Larijani, a senior adviser to Khamenei, stated on state television that any military action by the United States or Israel would “justify Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, President Masoud firmly rejected the notion of dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, asserting that such are “unacceptable.”

He reiterated that Iran will never relinquish its peaceful nuclear rights, emphasizing the country’s longstanding commitment to diplomacy. Moreover, due to lack of trust he insists lifting of sanctions in a single step while adhering to inspection as per nuclear agreement.

Will Iran give into pressure from the Zionist lobby, neo-conservatives, and media campaigns?

The limited progress attained through four rounds of diplomacy has been eclipsed by a media-driven pressure campaign orchestrated by Washington Zionist lobby and neo-conservatives, alongside disparaging remarks from American negotiators.

Remarks from figures such as Steve Witkoff and Marco Rubio suggest a deliberate attempt to use the media as an instrument of political coercion rather a means of fostering genuine diplomacy.

Similar strategies were employed during the Obama administration. At the heart of the discord is the issue of uranium enrichment.

The United States called on Iran to dismantle its uranium enrichment infrastructure, including all centrifuges, and to export its nuclear fuel to prevent the development of nuclear weapons.

Tehran, however, considers these both impractical and highly offensive. Iran asserts that its civilian nuclear program is entirely peaceful, as confirmed by numerous nuclear watchdogs, and emphasizes its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) has consistently highlighted that Israel operate enrichment facilities without facing accusations of militarization or any kinds of enforcement or inspections.

The insistence on dismantling infrastructure is perceived in Tehran as a threat to national interests and security, as well as a direct challenge to its sovereignty, equating to capitulation.

The legacy of the JCPOA, the influence of the Israel lobby, and the phenomenon of Iran-phobia.

The United States unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 under the Trump administration, an action that not only undermined years of diplomacy conducted by the Obama administration but also eroded trust in future American commitments.

Trump’s withdrawal reversed Obama’s achievements and imposed severe sanctions, leaving Iran with limited options other than advancing its nuclear program.

The claims propagated by Zionist groups, asserting Iran has enriched uranium to near-weapons grade and harbors inherently hostile intentions toward the destruction of Israel, seem to undermine the negotiations.

Over the past 75 years propaganda, deception, and financial influence have reportedly been key strategies utilized by Zionist lobbyists.

Iran’s Commitment to Achieving a Peaceful Resolution

Iran has consistently demonstrated a willingness to pursue diplomatic solutions to prevent war.

When Trump announced plans for high-level talks with Iran, it unexpectedly sidelined Netanyahu. Furthermore, the decision not to visit Israel caught many hawkish Zionists in Washington off guard and may also have been aimed at facilitating an attack on Iran.

Iran has shown a willingness to negotiate within a framework of mutual respect. Whether United States is prepared to reciprocate remains uncertain.

The United States employs the rhetoric of war, whereas Iran emphasizes the importance of diplomacy.

Despite enduring decades of sanctions, hostility, and animosity, Iran consistently demonstrated a willingness to engage in peaceful negotiations.

Iran perceives threats to bomb its nuclear sites as both deceitful and hypocritical.

Iranian negotiators have frequently expressed concerns about “moving the goalposts” or introducing new demands unrelated to the JCPOA.

Nonetheless, Tehran’s dedication to diplomacy is not without boundaries. Iran’s leadership encounters internal pressure to refrain from projecting an image of weakness or submission to foreign powers.

Years of economic hardship by unilateral sanctions have intensified public opposition to the United States, perceiving it as an act of imperialistic hypocrisy.

The likelihood of a sustainable agreement remains uncertain, contingent upon whether the United States is prepared to engage with Iran on equal terms and recognize its rights under the NPT.

For Iran, the lesson is clear: relinquishing leverage heightens the probability of US-driven regime change.

Due to legitimate concerns regarding potential threats from the Zion state, Iran employs its nuclear threshold both as a deterrent and as a strategic safeguard.

Iran Must Not Obtain Nuclear Weapons

The discourse surrounding potential strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities remains a significant topic. The phrase “must not be obtain nuclear weapons” frequently appears in Zionist media.

However, the likelihood of direct conflict remains uncertain. Trump’s strategy of avoiding war with Iran and prioritizing diplomacy reflects a prudent and effective approach.

During his campaign, Trump pledge to avoid engaging in wars during his tenure, a promise that appealed to Americans who supported him with the hope of ending proxy conflicts and regime changes worldwide.

In 2007, U.S. intelligence verified that Iran had formally halted its efforts to develop nuclear weapons technology in 2003.

This assessment has been consistently reaffirmed, most recently by President Trump’s Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, during her testimony before Congress.

She stated,

“The Intelligence Community continues to assess that Iran is not pursuing the development of a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the resumption of the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.”

Moreover, the Annual Threat Assessment determined that Iran is not engaged in the construction of nuclear weapons.

The Consequence of U.S. or Israeli Military Strike on Iran

Abandoning diplomatic efforts, such as a U.S. or Israeli military strike on Iran, could trigger retaliation. This situation could present significant risks to American forces and the global economy, including a sharp rise in oil prices, potential instability in the Arab world, and the possible collapse of the state of Israel.

What Is the Libyan Model?

The US has been proposing a “Libya Model” which is viewed not as a sincere or genuine proposal but as a call for unilateral disarmament, rendering it vulnerable to potential aggression.

This model references Gaddafi’s 2003 decision to dismantle Libya’s nuclear weapons program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions, to be later overthrown by Western-backed forces.

To avoid a fate like Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Gaddafi abandoned his nuclear ambitions in a failed attempt to gain favor with Western powers.

The decision to purse unilateral disarmament and dependence on the US and European colonial powers proved to be a grave miscalculation, leaving Libya defenseless during the Western-led offensive in 2011.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.

Source link