In my reading, President Donald Trump’s spirit is fueled by three central ambitions: to be him and to make his people as rich as possible; exercise and maintain absolute power in the city and the world; and stay in history. The aggression against Iran, like the others, has these objectives in view. But from Trump’s perspective it needs to be resolved without delay, to allow the Cuba case to be dealt with – we know what that means – before the November mid-term elections in the USA. Therefore, this week he presented a 15-point peace proposal. If Iran capitulated and accepted it in full, Washington could happily close this chapter and immediately move on to the Cuban issue.
However, Trump’s plan does not seem to have a future, nor the necessary balance. Tehran, according to the most credible public information sources, views this list of 15 points as a set of unacceptable proposals. They boil down to an indisputable surrender, which leaves no room for negotiations or an honorable solution.
The USA, by demanding the practically total denuclearization of the enemy, the end of support for regional groups allied with Tehran, limits on the production and range of its attack and defense missiles, the delivery of all its highly enriched uranium to the UN specialized agency on atomic energy (IAEA), simply aim to respond to Israeli objectives, as well as reduce Iran’s strategic defense capabilities and external alliances to zero. These are fundamental issues for the regime. In fact, none of Trump’s proposals touch on the issue of the regime, which would continue its policy of brutally violating the Human Rights of its citizens. Democracy and freedom are once again not part of Trump’s list of concerns.
The only compensation mechanism for the demands made by Washington would be related to the lifting of sanctions and the automatisms related to them. It would not, however, be a full concession. Technological embargoes, directly or indirectly related to military dimensions, would continue. Now, these blockades would deepen the weakening of Iran’s defense resources, not only in relation to Israel, but also in relation to Saudi Arabia and the USA.
The US will not abandon the region. Furthermore, there should soon be around 60,000 elite soldiers in bases and on ships surrounding Iran.
History teaches us, as I have had the opportunity to learn in various crisis theaters, that sanctions cause pain and problems, but they are bearable, especially in a country as vast as Iran and which has some strong friends in the international community.
Large-scale disarmament, on the other hand, does not offer any type of security guarantees. Accepting disarmament would, in the case of Iran, be a potentially fatal mistake. Furthermore, demanding total submission without offering an honorable exit to the party considered weaker – Iran – ignores the reality of state politics and opens the door to strengthening alliances with the enemies of the West. It is, for example, a gift offered to the superpowers that control the BRICS.
The so-called peace plan does not please Benjamin Netanyahu’s government either. Want more. The Israeli prime minister wants to see another kind of political leadership in Tehran, ready to accept Israel’s de facto prominence in the Middle East. And, above all, it wants to make sure that the nuclear infrastructure has in fact been destroyed, that the missile production program has been reduced to the size of a rifle factory, incapable of posing a threat to Israel, and that Iranian support for hostile armed groups, present in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Palestine itself, is entirely annihilated.
Trump’s proposal does not provide for any role for the UN Security Council. In other words, to end a war started outside the law, the so-called peace plan remains outside the framework and practice of International Law.
Wanting the approximately 450 kilograms of enriched uranium that Iran is said to hold to be in the custody of the IAEA is a bait-and-switch. It requires logistical capacity and a legal mandate that the UN Agency does not currently have. The Agency is a technical institution for verification and information on compliance with the commitments assumed by the country that is under a control process. It should not have a political function, because politics belongs to the exclusive competence of the Security Council.
In Iran’s view, this plan cannot be approved. You’ve already made it known. Niccolò Machiavelli reminds us, 500 years later, that an unbalanced peace plan that is not based on mutual concessions can quickly turn into a new source of war.
This is what the UN Secretary-General implied this week, when he emphasized, with enormous concern, that the war in the Middle East is out of control. At the same time, he appointed my former colleague Jean Arnault, a French national, as his Personal Representative, to build bridges between the conflicting parties. I would have done this longer ago, since the June 22, 2025 bombings of Iranian nuclear plants. However, I would not have named a Frenchman, nor another Westerner, although I have great appreciation for Arnault. The West is seen as an echo of Trump and Netanyahu. Partial.
Looking to the future, I unfortunately foresee a worsening of the crisis. A strong military escalation. A resumption of air and naval attacks against Iran, land incursions by American special troops, a complicated situation in the countries bordering the Persian Gulf and Lebanon, without forgetting the highly negative impact of the conflict on the international economy. Not to mention the free and reinforced hands for Russia to continue bombing Ukraine.
When listing the indicators of a possible military escalation, I see April with concern. We have until then no more than three or four weeks to find an alternative for true peace.
Leave a Reply