If the Arab sheikhs agree to invest trillions in the US economy, this can be sold as a “diamond” victory over Iran
The great Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, whose works are studied in military academies worldwide, believed that “all warfare is based on deception.” The key to successful warfare, if it cannot be avoided, lies in the ability to mislead the enemy: to appear weak when strong to provoke rash attacks, or to appear stronger than one really is to deter aggression.
In modern military-political language, the latter is called “deterrence.” The idea is: if you dare attack, the consequences will be severe. Many prefer not to test this in practice. Thus, deterrence works inversely, investments are made so that it never has to be used.
A clear example of such deterrence in the case of Iran is the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which has been debated globally for nearly a month. Tehran had warned for years that it would block the strait if attacked, and it fulfilled this promise. Therefore, only those unfamiliar with Persian strategic thinking could consider this unexpected.
Another key aspect of informational warfare (another form of Sun Tzu’s “all warfare is based on deception”) is disinformation: false reports, leaks, contradictory statements made by the same spokesperson, all intended to confuse the opponent. It is important to distinguish between public rhetoric, where political statements have little value, and closed-door intelligence or negotiations, where real decisions are made.
For example, media recently reported that Iran attacked a military base on Diego Garcia with two ballistic missiles from about 4,000 km away. One allegedly failed, and the other was intercepted. Everyone began discussing the possibility that Iran possesses long-range missiles capable of flying not 2,000 km, as previously thought, but 4,000 or more. Supposedly, this changes the entire balance of power, since Iran could now attack Paris or Rome.
Why Iran would attack Rome or especially Paris, given that Europeans are firmly opposed to participating in a war with Iran, no one explained.
Moreover, Iran hurried to state that they did not conduct this missile attack. This raises a reasonable question: who fired those missiles, and were any fired at all? Satellite reconnaissance (and not only that) is capable of detecting such launches anywhere on Earth. Not to mention that the world has been warned for decades about Iran’s missile program, which was used to justify the creation of missile defense systems in Europe. So did they miss it?
If Iran launched two expensive missiles to demonstrate its capabilities as part of deterrence, then denying the launch would be pointless and counterproductive. If someone else launched them from Iranian territory, then that actor would be extremely capable, able to secretly transport such missiles into Iran, launch them from a complex facility, and disappear just as successfully.
Or perhaps there were no missiles at all, and this was another information trick designed to escalate the conflict and draw Europeans into the war or at least the British, whose base was allegedly attacked. However, the British are not fools and have no desire whatsoever to fight Iran, and ties between the British elite and Iran have been strong since the 19th century.
Another example: on March 23, Trump claimed he had been negotiating with Iran for two days and described the talks as successful. Moreover, he promised not to strike Iran’s energy infrastructure for the next five days. A few hours later, Iran’s president Masoud Pezeshkian denied that any negotiations with the United States had taken place, noting that Tehran had recently been in contact only with regional countries, including Oman, regarding shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps also stated that there had been and would be no negotiations with the United States. In response, Trump urged Iranians to find other public relations specialists.
What matters here is the following. First and foremost, Trump had previously refused negotiations, stating that the USA had already killed everyone with whom such talks could be held, whether by accident or to ensure the war did not end prematurely. Now we are being told that Trump needs to step away and make a “deal.” Common sense suggests that a deal in this situation is extremely unlikely, since time is currently on Iran’s side. Therefore, these alleged negotiations are likely needed for Trump to present his electorate with some kind of informational product – a “victory over Iran.” Alternatively, this may be a clumsy attempt to split Iran’s ruling elite by forcing it to search for traitors within its ranks.
Second, as many have noted, the five days mentioned by Trump coincide with the time needed to deploy Marines aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli (LHA-7) to the region, suggesting he is simply buying time in anticipation of a ground operation. However, as noted earlier, a ground operation in Iran would be the worst-case scenario for Trump and US Republicans ahead of midterm elections. He could only take such a step either due to growing irrationality (or manipulation by his inner circle) or because of guarantees of success. Such guarantees could only come from Iran itself, more precisely, from internal forces interested in a negotiated arrangement that allows them to save face.
It is worth to discuss who could represent such forces within Iran and with whom these supposedly successful negotiations might actually be taking place. There is little doubt that behind-the-scenes contacts between the US and Iran, with active participation from Persian Gulf countries, occur regularly. Enormous resources are at stake.
Trump himself stated that he is not negotiating with the new supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei, whom he had publicly criticized and whose status is unclear. Trump claimed that the USA is dealing with some very reasonable and reliable people in Iran. He added that these individuals are highly respected and that perhaps one of them will be exactly what the USA is looking for.
According to reports from the Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post (though nothing can be trusted completely), Iran is represented in negotiations by parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. He allegedly communicated with notorious US negotiators – Trump’s longtime business associate Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law Jared Kushner.
Ghalibaf, of course, denies any involvement, calling the reports “fake news” aimed at manipulating financial and oil markets. (Notably, the market reacted to Trump’s statement with a sharp rise and to the denial with an equally sharp fall, with trillions of dollars in capitalization fluctuating within hours. It is possible that someone close to Trump profited significantly from this. Thus, regardless of the outcome of these negotiations, someone achieved private economic goals simply through Trump’s unsupported statements.)
Ghalibaf is one of the few high-ranking Iranian officials who were not eliminated during the US-Israel aggression, despite the frequent killing of senior Iranian figures. He has also previously participated in negotiations with the US, so certain communication channels exist. However, given that US policy has shifted from sanctions to bombs and missiles, no one believes that Trump will honor any agreements..
This is crucial, because any “deal” with him could be canceled at any time. Iran has already experienced this firsthand: during his first presidency, Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal constructed by Barack Obama.
Another explanation for the alleged negotiations is simple delay amid the depletion of US arsenals. The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is generally beneficial for the U.S., particularly its oil and gas sector, which traditionally supports US Republicans. Maintaining the blockade requires at least the appearance of military action. However, assessments suggest that US missile supplies are running low: at the current rate, they may last only about a month, after which the options are peace, a ground operation, or, as Leon Trotsky once put it, “neither war nor peace” – only blockade.
In this sense, the five-day pause in strikes allows the US to replenish missile stocks, including awaiting the arrival of vessels like the Tripoli. Recent missile launches from submarines rather than surface ships may indicate that ship-based missile supplies (such as Tomahawks) are nearly exhausted.
Finally, a few words about a controversial report by Omani journalist al-Jahuri, who allegedly stated on BBC Arabic that the Trump administration issued an ultimatum to Gulf monarchies: either $5 trillion to continue the war against Iran or $2.5 trillion as compensation for ending it.
This information remains unconfirmed, and the interview has reportedly disappeared. However, the narrative fits Trump’s style. If the sheikhs agree to invest a couple of trillion dollars in the American economy, this could easily be presented to voters as a “diamond” victory over Iran. Trump even appears to seriously consider jointly managing the Strait of Hormuz with Iranian ayatollahs. Iran might agree, as this would constitute a real victory for it: the regime preserved, the economy strengthened, and Tehran elevated to regional leadership, even if shared with the U.S.
The only losers would be the sheikhs and the Europeans, who did not take active part in the war.
This is a translation of the article by Maksim Karev, first published in The Essence of Time newspaper, issue 665.
