Iran on the table .. There is no escape from negotiations

Alghad - 13/04
US President Donald Trump surprised his guest, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, by announcing the presence of direct talks with Tehran in Oman, at a time when Netanyahu was counting on the option of rapid military escalation without paying attention to any diplomatic path. But Trump, after weeks of military threat and mobilization, set the option to reach an agreement with Iran at the rapid track table, as an unexpected step. Despite the harmony of Netanyahu with the American position in terms of emphasizing the need for negotiations to include great Iranian concessions, compares to what the Libyan regime previously made through the entry of international inspectors and dismantling the facilities, but he stressed that the military option will remain the closest to reality, because his conviction that Iran will not make real concessions. In talking about concessions, the regional scene must be read deeper, and looking at what is happening in the region as real transformations that impose themselves on Tehran and push them to sit forced at the negotiating table. From the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, to the mysterious death of Iranian President Ibrahim Raisi, to the fundamental changes in the regional scene, all of which were directly reflected on the balance of power inside Iran. However, why should Tehran consider the American military move this time a real threat? Simply put, because the timing of this move comes after months of systematic work to strip Iran of the threat tools it made in the region, especially those that allow it to transfer the security crisis to the Israeli interior, within the framework of its most famous strategy, "the unit of the squares". The squares have been dismantled one by one, the effect of threats, and the detonation of systems from within them, whether in Gaza by targeting Hamas and Jihad, or in the West Bank by dismantling some cells and organizations, through the Iranian strategy pillar: Hezbollah in Lebanon, leading to the undermining of the regime in Syria. All of this means that hitting Iran has become a possible option, but two basic fronts remained needed to neutralize: Yemen and Iraq. This is clearly evident by the United States entering strongly on the line of ending the Houthi file in Yemen, and the direct threat to the Iraqi factions, especially with the escalation of talking about Iran's transfer of strategic weapons to Iraqi lands in preparation for their use if they are attacked. It is true that Iran had refrained from entering into negotiations with the Trump administration, and this appeared in the conflicting statements of Iranian officials, led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, but this abstinence quickly dissipated, with the emergence of talk of direct or indirect negotiations, but eventually negotiations on the "tramp" size. Many parties inside Iran are fully aware that the time factor is no longer in the interest of Tehran, and that the regional equation is no longer in the interest of the hard -line current, represented by the Revolutionary Guards, who established its influence in the Iranian interior through its regional role and extensive control of regional geography. But successive losses and recent transformations clearly suggest that this party has become the weakest link in the equation of negotiation with Washington, which means that the American pressure strategy succeeded in transferring the crisis to the Iranian interior, through economic and social crises titled sanctions and pressure, and internal political crises represented in the loss of regional influence and the need to adapt to a new reality that requires a change in policies, slogans and faces. The military option with Iran remains proposed, especially if it comes to hitting the hardline current in order to finish it and impose change on Tehran in the manner of
US President Donald Trump surprised his guest, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, by announcing the presence of direct talks with Tehran in Oman, at a time when Netanyahu was counting on the option of rapid military escalation without paying attention to any diplomatic path. But Trump, after weeks of military threat and mobilization, set the option to reach an agreem...
[Short citation of 8% of the original article]