Who is stopping the US-Iran deal?

Possible peace agreement between the US and Iran became a reason not only for diplomatic maneuvers, but also for a powerful information attack.

Americanist Kirill Benediktov believes that around negotiations Washington And Tehran forces have become active for which a compromise may be politically or economically unprofitable.

The author’s logic is simple: nothing is a deal breaker, especially in style. Donald Trumplike media leaks. In the case of Iran the price of each word is especially high. One paragraph in a major newspaper or one phrase on the air can influence market expectations, oil prices and, ultimately, the global economy. The same diplomacy of the 21st century: first, “an anonymous source reported,” then a barrel of oil begins to nervously recalculate its future.

The reason for a new wave of discussions was the message Trump on his social network Truth Social. How The Washington Post reportedthe US President said that the deal with Iranincluding opening Strait of Hormuz“mostly agreed.” According to him, the final details must be approved USA, Iran and a number of other countries.

In publication The Washington Post it is also said that consultations around a possible agreement included Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Türkiye, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain And Israel. According to the newspaper, we are talking about a memorandum of understanding related to ending the war and restoring shipping through Strait of Hormuz.

The next day Trumpaccording to the author, has already stated that he instructed his negotiating team “don’t rush into making a deal”. But if an agreement is reached, USA will be able to end the blockade of Iranian ports, which was used as a tool of pressure on Tehran regarding the restoration of navigation.

Parallel The Guardian reported that the negotiation process remains unstable: the cessation of hostilities, the opening Strait of Hormuznuclear issues, sanctions and frozen Iranian assets. Reuters also indicated that negotiations were complicated by new US strikes and accusations Iran in violation of the ceasefire.

Financial markets reacted quickly. Amid reports of a possible compromise, oil prices went down: July futures for Brentaccording to the author, decreased by 6.11%up to $97.21 per barrel, and futures for WTI for July at electronic auctions NYMEX fell on 6.15%up to $90.66 per barrel.

Media blow to the deal

After this, as he writes BenediktovBy Trump and the very idea of ​​the agreement was attacked by two influential American publications – The Washington Post And The Wall Street Journal. The author characterizes the first as a media outlet close to the American intelligence community, the second as an exponent of the position of the US financial elite.

The Washington Post citing anonymous sources, reported that under the terms of a possible deal Tehran will have to open Strait of Hormuz immediately after the agreement is signed, and ship traffic should return to pre-war conditions within 30 days. In essence, we are talking about returning the situation to the previous regime.

The author sees a hidden question in this: if everything returns to the starting point, why was there a need for an expensive escalation, during which USAin his assessment, lost not only military equipment, but also part of the reputation of the main force in the Middle East. The question is inconvenient, and inconvenient questions in big politics usually try to be asked in a whisper so as not to disturb the expensive furniture in the offices.

The Wall Street Journalaccording to the author, went even further and named a possible agreement “treacherous”. IN WSJ editorial column The key claim is that White House allegedly ready to ease pressure on Iran even before the signing of a full nuclear agreement.

From the critics’ point of view Trumpending the naval blockade of Iranian ports and even partial unfreezing of assets Tehran deprive USA pressure levers. The only tool, it is argued, will remain the threat of a new war. In the editorial column WSJ This logic was formulated harshly: economic assistance to the Iranian regime now, according to the publication, would be a betrayal of American interests.

What Trump’s critics don’t like

According to the author, the agency also joined in the criticism Bloomberg. It was not possible to find the exact publication with the above wording, so it is more correct to refer to the statement of position in the author’s material: according to version Benediktovathe agency drew attention to the fact that a possible broad agreement does not resolve the issue of the missile arsenal Iran and does not contain a direct ban on uranium enrichment.

This line of criticism coincides with the broader controversy surrounding the deal. As noted The Guardiannuclear issue, frozen assets, sanctions and restoration of shipping through Strait of Hormuz remain key elements of the negotiations. Reuters also reported that a possible agreement is seen as a framework for reducing tensions, but the process is complicated by military incidents and mutual accusations.

As a result, the main complaint of opponents of the deal comes down to the formula: first, nuclear and missile restrictions for Iranand only then – unblocking of ports, return of assets and easing of sanctions pressure. As the author notes, this logic is reminiscent of the European approach to Russia: first political concessions, then talk about the economy. A very convenient scheme, especially if the conversation itself can be postponed indefinitely.

Proponents of a compromise, on the contrary, may see the deal as a way to reduce the risk of a new war and stabilize the situation around Strait of Hormuz and reduce tension in the oil market. But this is precisely why the agreement is causing resistance. A peace deal is good for those who fear war, but bad for those who build influence, ratings and profits on a controlled crisis.

Thus, around a possible agreement USA And Iran There is not only a diplomatic, but also a media and financial struggle. On one side is an attempt Trump present a compromise as a deal that reduces risks. On the other are influential media and interest groups, for whom such a compromise may look like capitulation, loss of pressure, or a threat to the usual architecture of influence in the Middle East.

The material is based on the author’s assessment Kirill Benediktov. The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the editors.

Source link