What seemed to be leading towards a military strike against Iran ended with a twist: Trump backed down from threats and agreed to negotiate based on the 10-point plan presented by Tehran.
Ben Rhodes, former U.S. National Security Advisor, described the outcome as a “comprehensive” defeat suffered in a short-lived conflict.
Yair Lapid, former Prime Minister of Israel, was even more direct: he classified the result as a “strategic collapse” and an “unprecedented political disaster” in Israeli history.
The Iranian plan accepted as the basis for negotiations offers few concessions to the U.S., according to analysts. Trump confirmed the acceptance of the principle of a levy on the Strait of Hormuz, although he expressed a preference for a “joint venture” with American participation.
JP Morgan estimates that Iran could gain between 70 and 90 billion dollars in additional annual revenue from controlling the strait. This amount represents about 20% of Iran’s GDP and is nearly ten times what the Suez Canal generates for Egypt, between 9 and 10 billion dollars per year.
The most accepted hypothesis among analysts is that Trump attempted a high-risk bluff to which Iran simply did not yield. Iran, whose survival as a state depended on not capitulating, had no room to back down.
Jennifer Kavanagh, former director of the RAND Corporation, states that by raising the stakes so high without achieving results, the U.S. maximized the damage to the global perception of its power. For her, it is a “clear strategic defeat.”
With information from arnaudbertrand.substack.com.
Original published at O Cafezinho.