Almost 40 days of total military aggression, shadow warfare, and economic blockade have given way not to the surrender of Iran, but to its emergence with a strategic advantage. The "Ramadan War", which is what the war against Iran by the US and Israel is called, an unprovoked and illegal military aggression that took place, ended in a way that the US and Israel never predicted. Iran did not collapse, its military bases were not broken up, and its military deterrence remained intact. And now, as the weapons have fallen silent, Iran, not the US, is the one setting the terms.
These are not maximalist negotiating ploys
The terms of Iran for the end of the war are not maximalist negotiating ploys. Instead, they are the logical, rational, and legally sound demands of a victor who has proven, on the battlefield and in the diplomatic arena, that aggression against a resilient nation produces only defeat. Iran does not ask for charity. It demands what is rightfully owed to a nation that has been unjustly attacked, has suffered illegal sanctions, has been economically terrorized, and yet emerges stronger, more cohesive, and with greater confidence.
In every war, the side that asks for a ceasefire is the side that loses
The first and most critical point in the strategic calculation of Iran is remarkably simple: in every war, the side that asks for a ceasefire is the side that loses. Iran did not ask for a ceasefire. It was the American side. This single fact overturns the conventional Western narrative that depicts Iran as an isolated, pressured "regime" desperately seeking a deal.
The logic of Iran is rooted in the universal, time-tested rationality of all wars. Wars do not end because both sides get tired at the same time. They end when one side realizes that continuing the fighting will have worse results than accepting the terms of the other side.
The proof of failure...
In the 40-day war, the US and Israel, an alliance of the most advanced militaries, intelligence services, and economic powers in the world, failed to achieve its stated goals. There was no "regime change". The nuclear infrastructure of Iran remained intact. The Axis of Resistance did not collapse. And, the crucial point, Iran emerged stronger.
The US lacks the capacity to defeat Iran
If America had the capacity to defeat Iran militarily, it would have done so. It would not have sought a ceasefire and it would not have opened back-channel avenues for negotiations. The very act of seeking an end to the war constitutes an admission of strategic failure. Therefore, the enemy has no right to achieve through diplomacy, by the end of the war, what it could not achieve through indiscriminate violence, cowardly terrorist acts, and state-sponsored criminality. This is a strategic logic and it dictates everything that follows.
The aggressor pays: Compensation, withdrawal, and termination of sanctions
Because the US is the aggressor, having launched an unprovoked war against the Iranian nation through assassinations, sabotage, cyberattacks, and direct military strikes, it must bear the full cost of its cowardly aggression.
Consequently, the terms of Iran are not punitive fantasies, but standard provisions in any post-war settlement where the aggressor ends up on the losing side.
1) Iran demands full payment of war damages and compensation for all victims of American and Israeli aggression.
2) Return of all Iranian assets and properties that have been illegally frozen or seized.
3) Full withdrawal of American forces from the military bases surrounding Iran.
4) Termination of the illegal naval blockade, which by itself constitutes an act of war.
5) Comprehensive termination of aggression on all fronts, including the allies of Iran in the Axis of Resistance.
6) Full and verifiable lifting of all illegal sanctions against Iran, including the revocation of the sanction resolutions of the UN Security Council and a signed agreement ending the war that enshrines these terms. These demands do not constitute open offers, but the minimum acceptable outcome for Iran. The aggressor pays, withdraws, and lifts its illegal economic siege.
Diplomacy as a continuation of war by other means
Iran has already proven its superiority in diplomacy. By forcing the American side to accept its framework for ending the illegal and unprovoked war, Iran proved that America failed in this war. The US assembled the strongest military coalition in modern history, planned for years to overthrow the Islamic Republic or to force it into fundamental concessions, and achieved nothing. None of the military goals were realized and everyone recognizes this. Any future negotiations after the end of this imposed war will be conducted from a position of Iranian strength. The Iranian negotiators will not need to link these talks with wartime pressures. And make no mistake: Iran cannot be pressured diplomatically.
Any weakness of the enemy in fulfilling its obligations will be met with Iranian responses below the threshold of a full war, an area in which Iran operates with even greater ease and lethality. The enemy has already tested Iran in conventional war and has suffered a crushing defeat at the level of reputation, military, politics, and strategy. It has no appetite for a second round.
Strait of Hormuz – A prize already won by Iran
Perhaps no single issue demonstrates the strategic advantage of Iran more clearly than the Strait of Hormuz. Western analysts usually present the strait as a point of vulnerability for Iran, a choke point that Iran threatens to close. This is exactly the reverse. The position of Iran is that the Strait of Hormuz already constitutes an Iranian gain from the war. It is a legal, principled, and logical right that is currently in the hands of Iran. In contrast to frozen assets or sanctions, which require active reversal control by the enemy, in this strategic waterway located between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, no new action is required from Iran. It is a fait accompli.
The enhanced control of Iran over the Straits of Hormuz serves three specific goals.
1) Security: Guaranteeing the security of Iran in the Persian Gulf against future American or Persian Gulf Arab aggression.
2) Economic justice: Prevention of extortion by regional governments and ensuring the material rights of the Iranian nation through tolls and transit fees.
3) Strategic deterrence: The creation of a new normality in which any future aggression against Iran will have to take into account the stricter control of Tehran over global energy choke points.
Hormuz will not return to the previous state
The state of the strait of Hormuz after the war is fundamentally different from what it was before the war. Iran will not return to the previous order. That order, in which the US patrolled freely, imposed sanctions, and threatened Iran with impunity, is essentially dead. The permanent sovereignty of Iran over the waterway is not a demand but a reality that the enemy must accept. Iran does not act unilaterally, agreements with neighboring Oman, based on mutual interests, are essential for consolidating the control of Iran. The diplomatic mechanism of Iran actively pursues these agreements. The indisputable sovereignty of Iran over the Strait of Hormuz represents the heavy penalty and fine that the aggressor must pay for its invasion of Iranian territory, directly or by proxy. Every tanker that transits under terms acceptable to Tehran constitutes a reminder that the US made disastrous calculations.
The nuclear issue – Plans postponed but not canceled
The Western media often present the nuclear program of Iran as the central point of pressure against Tehran. It is not a point of weakness, but a field of proven Iranian resilience. Throughout its long history in peaceful nuclear activities, including temporary, voluntary transparency measures, Iran has never abandoned its principles or its legal rights. International law recognizes the right of Iran to possess the full nuclear fuel cycle. America has no authority to bypass international organizations and treaties and is not the nuclear policeman of the world. The defeat of the US in the recent war has stripped it of any right to this role. Both the US and the Zionist regime tried to enforce the nuclear surrender of Iran through unprovoked wars and bombings, but failed miserably. They will also fail in any future negotiations to strip the unalienable nuclear rights of Iran. The decisions of Iran, regarding enrichment levels, research, development, and even the scope of its Nuclear program, are its own business.
Iran does not possess nuclear weapons
Trump and the members of his war cabinet, including the secretary of war, repeatedly claim that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb is their primary goal. But here too, the position of Iran is clear and has been stated repeatedly: a nuclear bomb has no place in the defense and security doctrine of Iran. This is not a new or ambiguous position. It is a public matter, reinforced by the fatwa (religious decree) of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, against the development and use of nuclear weapons. Trump cannot claim that he won on an issue where there was no threat. The American president, who finds himself in a difficult position, cannot view the myth of the nuclear bomb as his personal achievement. If, in the future, with changing regional conditions and potentially with a revised fatwa, the doctrine of Iran evolves, that is a matter for another time. But today, in the present, the doctrine has not changed. Iran possesses all the necessary knowledge to complete the nuclear cycle for peaceful development and will continue to exercise its unalienable rights.
Trump constantly changes deadlines
Throughout the recent war and its aftermath, Trump resorted repeatedly to a worn-out, theatrically bankrupt tactic: the artificial deadline. " Iran must agree by date X, or else". This trick failed at least 7 times. Each time, the US president backed down. This deadline threat is a psychological warfare technique designed to cause panic, haste, and careless mistakes from the Iranian side. Iran has shown that it will not be rushed and will take all the necessary time to draft a meticulous, powerful document for the end of the war that will close every loophole and ensure national and strategic interests. The deadline essentially constitutes a threat of war. But war has already been tested. War brought the enemy nothing but humiliation, and re-engaging in a war cannot bring anything different. The US bluffs saying that if the Iranians do not respond they will strike again... the diplomatic mechanism of Iran must remain alert against this trick, but it does not need to lose sleep over it.
American refineries and the strange explosions
The recent chain of explosions and fire incidents in at least five American refineries and petrochemical complexes in different regions of the United States has also been under-investigated by the American authorities. This, too, is not accidental. These incidents demonstrate a strategic development that should terrify the enemies of Iran. The world has reached a stage where knowledge based on information technology has developed so much that it can replace physical military action in specific geographic areas. Cyber powers, wielded by unknown actors anywhere in the world, can achieve the same results as armed attack, but without the high cost, limitations in missile range, or legal and international responsibilities.
The opponents of Iran have long relied on their capability to project conventional military power globally. The lesson for the Americans is harsh: your critical infrastructure is vulnerable. Your refineries, your networks, your financial systems, all are potential targets in an area where traditional military superiority offers no protection. If you wage another war on Iran, the Americans will not be safe anywhere.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών