Vetted by NeuralPress's Multi-Agent Verifier for strict factual validity and event relevance. Our compliance engine cross-checks and filters search results to ensure zero false correlations or misleading content.
Primary Sources
Iran's Strategic Options: Rethinking Negotiation with America
Iranian realism rejects reliance on US promises, emphasising deterrence, domestic strength and tangible power. Historical US treaty breaches, unilateral withdrawals, and interventionism justify Iran’s pragmatic strategy: conditional diplomacy, active deterrence and prioritised national security over formal agreements.Iran’s approach underscores the primacy of objective power, historical empiricism and a structural distrust towards both bilateral treaties and the international system at large. [Reuters]Introduction In analysing the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, reliance upon the classical frameworks of liberal diplomacy—predicated as they are on mutual trust, international institutions, and legal obligations—appears distinctly inadequate for elucidating the conduct of major powers, most notably the United States. The foreign policy system of the Islamic Republic defines ‘Iranian realism’ as a pragmatic theoretical framework which, in stark contrast to Western schools of thought, is founded not upon the maintenance of a crude balance of power, but rather upon ‘active deterrence’ and a steadfast reliance on practical, on-the-ground measures. In this view, written commitments and diplomatic assurances are devoid of intrinsic value; rather, it is exclusively tangible, operational capabilities in the field that are deemed the true guarantors of survival and national security. The historical experience of engaging with major powers, specifically the United States, has demonstrated that diplomacy in its conventional sense—rooted in goodwill and adherence to obligations—proves wholly ineffectual against America’s structural interests and habitual pattern of abrogating agreements. Furthermore, international commitments, when bereft of a robust deterrent backing, ultimately amount to ceding the initiative to an actor that simultaneously dictates and flouts the rules of the game. Consequently, Iranian realism must be understood as an indigenous theory of decision-making. By synthesising ‘historical memory’, the ‘calculus of power’ and ‘pre-emptive action’, it offers a paradigm for comprehending and directing foreign policy that is profoundly divergent from Western models. Contrary to the classical interpretations of realism within international relations, Iranian realism is not merely an analytical construct; it is a logic of survival, born of Iran's historical encounters with the volatility of the international system and the capricious behaviour of...
US-Iran Conflict: A Strategic Trap for Trump - orfonline.org
China's assessment of the US-Iran war highlights Trump's strategic missteps, alliance fractures, and a prolonged conflict driving global economic risk and strategic exhaustion.
Race Against Time: US-Iran Ceasefire Talks Intensify as Deadline ...
Race Against Time: US-Iran Ceasefire Talks Intensify as Deadline Approaches As a deadline set by former President Donald Trump looms, the US, Iran, and regional mediators are engaged in high-stakes negotiations for a potential 45-day ceasefire, which could lead to a permanent end to the conflict. Chances for a swift resolution seem slim with strategic consequences resting on a knife-edge.
Trump's path forward on Iran will determine US-Israeli war alignment
However, this US-Israeli alignment exists alongside fundamental differences in the two countries' strategic outlooks, especially as the war has progressed. Israel's physical proximity to Iran makes the destruction of the Iranian ballistic missile program a much higher priority for Jerusalem than for Washington.
