Tehran-Washington: On the Red Line
Jalal Khosh-Chehre, the editorial chief of Borna News Agency wrote: Today, all sides speak easily of the possibility of a new war, yet the manner of its commencement remains a subject of debate and doubt. This uncertainty stems from the fact that any such conflict would likely retain the element of surprise. Such a surprise might be initiated by any party as a deterrent or preemptive action. Nevertheless, one cannot easily overlook the consequences. Safeguarding calculations in practical approaches is what could, at the very least, keep the current situation in a state of freeze.
While a frozen state is far from ideal—often interpreted as a choice between the bad and the worse—it may provide an opportunity to find the point of equilibrium for these disputes; a missing gem or, as politicians call it, a "silver bullet" that could prove effective. Unfortunately, this equilibrium point is not yet visible on the horizon. The reasons for this are multifaceted. First, both Tehran and Washington are well aware of each other’s ultimate intentions. Second, the parties continue to fluctuate between the display of power and the actual exercise of it. Third, both sides have long surpassed the tit-for-tat game; they now stand with fingers on the trigger, closely monitoring each other's every move.
Furthermore, Washington’s behavioral structure toward Tehran remains a combination of maximum pressure, utilizing disputes between Tehran and Europe within the framework of the Snapback mechanism, highlighting Iran's missile threat, portraying Tehran as weak yet dangerous, and ultimately fueling Iranophobia in the international community. Washington seeks to secure a unilateral victory in any interaction with Tehran through a blend of pressure and diplomacy. Meanwhile, Donald Trump displays a contradictory performance, acting as though he does not currently need Tehran's return to the negotiating table, while in reality, he desires it.
Contrary to the claims of Washington and its allies, Tehran maintains an existential emphasis that its military capabilities, especially its missile weaponry, are purely defensive tools. From Tehran’s perspective, ambiguous solutions only provide one-sided advantages—not just for the West, but direct benefits for Israel as well. Thus, a stalemate is a natural outcome in these currently frozen interactions. Tehran believes that Trump’s practical policies focus on one-sided gains rather than achieving mutual interests. Additionally, Tehran’s perception of European complicity with Washington’s policies, alongside the tightening circle of economic pressures through joint Western action, has doubled the pessimism regarding an immediate attainment of a point of equilibrium.
Consequently, the protection of calculations by each party has now taken on a special significance. Is the element of surprise in a first strike to initiate a new confrontation strong enough to warrant a pessimistic outlook on future events? This pessimism must be considered in the near future, especially since, unlike in the past, the current frozen state cannot be long-lasting. The locked diplomacy between Tehran and Washington remains trapped in a fog, a situation that signifies nothing but a threat to all parties involved.
End Article