Nournews: Right in the midst of indirect negotiations between Iran and the United States—talks that had been accompanied by relatively hopeful reports—in an incident reminiscent of the 12-day war, the Israeli regime, in partnership with Washington, launched a new wave of large-scale attacks against Iran on Saturday morning. The repetition of this behavioral pattern has made it reasonable and acceptable, even for the most skeptical analysts, to assume that what the United States seeks regarding Iran goes beyond merely resolving alleged ambiguities in Iran’s nuclear file. One could even argue that Iran’s nuclear activities themselves are no longer of primary importance to American policymakers.
The direct assault on the institution of leadership and the martyrdom of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, along with the overly optimistic messages from the U.S. president, reinforce this assumption. In his message—apparently aimed at agitating the minds of the Iranian people—he spoke of a “chance to reclaim the country,” while simultaneously promising the continuation of heavy and precision bombings “to achieve peace across the Middle East.”
From “Uranium Enrichment” to “Political Transformation”
In light of recent developments, particularly the unprecedented and criminal act of assassinating Ayatollah Khamenei, it can be claimed that technical nuclear details are no longer America’s primary concern. The coincidence of a relatively positive diplomatic atmosphere with military action by the United States and Israel revealed that the playing field has changed. What outwardly revolves around issues such as enrichment levels, the number of centrifuges, and monitoring mechanisms, inwardly relates to something deeper: the balance of power and the redefinition of Iran’s regional position.
It is not unrealistic to suggest that the visit of Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi—the mediator of the negotiations—to Washington and his talks with Trump’s deputy were intended to convey precisely these doubts. Perhaps this experienced diplomat had already concluded that, given Iran’s new positions in the negotiations, diplomacy logically should have been prevailing over tension; and if the American side were sincere, there would have been no reason to delay an agreement. Now, with the attack occurring in the midst of this process, Washington appears to be sending a different message—to everyone, including the mediator—that the dispute with Iran is not merely technical, but political and geopolitical.
Thus, it can be argued that America’s main issue with Iran is no longer simply negotiating limits on nuclear capacity, but bargaining over “political transformation.” The central question for Washington is what position Iran should occupy in the region’s evolving order, how its network of influence should be defined, and how far its share in the Middle Eastern balance of power should extend.
If the issue were merely nuclear breakout time, a technical agreement—even with the strictest limitations—could have been considered a solution. However, the concerns of opposing actors relate less to uranium levels and more to Iran’s influence in international and regional politics. From this perspective, any agreement that leads to reduced economic pressure and stabilization of Iran’s geopolitical standing could be viewed as consolidating an undesirable strategic reality.
War as a Regulating Variable
Under such conditions, diplomacy alone is not decisive for the United States. What shapes its calculations is the ratio of threat to concession, and the assessment of the costs of war versus the costs of agreement. Washington may have concluded that reaching a deal with Iran carries costs far greater than confronting it militarily. The decision to attack while negotiations were moving toward a potential agreement reflects this reality.
Within this framework, even the most extensive technical restrictions may be deemed insufficient, because the core issue is not containing technology, but containing Iran’s status.
At this point, war becomes the principal variable regulating the power equation. Its function is not necessarily to initiate a full-scale conflict, but to redefine the ceiling of expectations and shape the scope of acceptable concessions at the negotiating table. Hard power determines the framework of diplomacy—not the other way around. This is where diplomacy is reduced to “crisis management.” Dialogue may continue, but any technical progress can be nullified by developments on the ground. An agreement not founded on a political decision regarding the regional order will remain fragile.
NOURNEWS