IRANIAN SOURCES SAY THEY WANT A FULL END TO THE WAR, NOT JUST A CEASEFIRE – FARS. IRAN WILL END WAR AT TIME OF OWN CHOOSING: PRESS TV – BBG

by


Red Teaming the Negotiations
The U.S. plan seems clear:

Get agreement and enforce it and call it regime change and win (or call it a win).

Be better prepared (and allow the world to be better prepared) for the resumption of hostilities after the ceasefire.

What about Iran:

Iran has now been attacked twice while “negotiating”. The element of surprise helped those attacks, but it must leave a lot of doubt in the mind of the Iranians, that any ceasefire will be honored. The “best” case, is that if they decide to take that risk, it is probably because they too are prepared to violate the ceasefire.

What can Iran do in 30 days to offset what the U.S. and the rest of the world can do in 30 days? Iran would be insane not to think that the rest of the world will be much better prepared for any supply constrictions. It would be shocking to see anything less than the biggest restocking of energy products in the next 30 days, that the world has ever seen. So your economic leverage gets lower than it is today. It is clear that the U.S. and maybe even some forces from the rest of the world will be bigger and more prepared for the next round. Is Iran hauling missiles out of bunkers so deeply buried that they haven’t been hit?

Does Iran believe that they can use the next 30 days to be in position to inflict more damage on a bigger, freshly supplied enemy, and a world that stocked up on oil?

Are their own people coalescing around a common enemy? Have the attacks reduced the pressure for regime change from within? Or is the regime itself being blamed by the people, making the regime’s position even more precarious? This could be playing out in either direction and it is difficult to tell since we get so little information from within Iran.

What happens to the IRGC members if they are not in power after a deal? To be brutally honest, the consensus view is they will be killed. This is a powerful group, who have created links between powerful families within the IRGC. They have wealth. They have power. They have been brutal. Not exactly ideal conditions to slink off, in the event of loss.

Does Iran believe that there is some amount of “time” where the disruption to global trade (oil and more) causes the U.S. to offer better terms. Economic problems (and recession probabilities) are already growing in Asia and Europe. We had the CEO of a domestic homebuilder mention the conflict in the Middle East as a headwind for home sales in the U.S. Yes, we are somewhat isolated, but we are not an oasis, that won’t feel the impact.

Bottom Line
It is easy to see why we would make these proposals.

If Iran agrees to them all and we truly believe they won’t just try rebuild (as they have done time and time again, like they did after the 12 days of attacks last year), then we have truly won (even if some faction within the IRGC remains in power).

If we change our minds and decide to attack again, unless Iran has some surprises up its sleeve (which is a possibility as they just recently launched missiles with a longer range than they have previously admitted to), we will be in better shape to attack.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/taco-vs-taw-fade-equity-rally

This analysis highlights a simple but uncomfortable reality, repeated attacks during prior negotiations have already altered how trust is evaluated, and that alone reshapes every assumption about whether a ceasefire would hold or fail. When one side believes agreements can be violated while talks are ongoing, the incentive shifts from cooperation toward preparation for the next phase, which means both diplomatic language and military posture start to serve as parallel tracks rather than a single path to resolution.