The Before and After in ‘Negotiating’ with Iran.

 Leaders of the Islamic Republic do not think or talk like Western nations; to believe that they do is a recipe for disasters, as history recounts.

 (From an article by Harold Rhode, specialist in Iranian affairs)  According to U.S. special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, U.S. President Donald Trump is curious as to why the Iranians have not “capitulated,” given the amount of naval and other power Washington has amassed in the Middle East.

 Maybe these thoughts can help provide an answer.

 To answer the question, we must ask ourselves how Iranians, as well as other Middle Eastern powers, understand negotiations and war. Unlike us, they ask themselves two questions. Do their enemies/adversaries have both the capability and the will to use their weapons against their enemies? If they conclude that the answer to both questions is yes, they usually determine that they must accede to their enemies’ demands, in order survive.

In the present case, the Iranians seem to realize that Israel and the USA certainly have the military strength to them out, should we desire to do so. But they seem also to have concluded that there is not the will to do use their forces to do so.

Therefore, from the Iranian perspective, that means that we are weak. And when Iranians smell weakness, they strike. That is why the more we delay completing the action in Iran, the more they raise the ante in the so-called “negotiations” between Washington and Tehran. That is why there are more and more threats coming out of the mouths of Iran’s most senior leaders.

What then is the purpose of negotiations?

From the perspective of the Iranians and others throughout the Muslim world, the time to talk is only after one side wins. At these talks, the winner dictates to the loser the terms of how they will deal with each other. This, in short, means that the loser must surrender. If the loser isn’t prepared to do so, the battle continues until the loser has been destroyed.