American President Donald Trump appears to be embroiled in a well-planned disinformation operation aimed at undermining negotiations between the US and Iran. It is no coincidence that reports have surfaced questioning the role of Pakistani Marshal Asim Munir, a key mediator; these aim to create distrust toward Pakistan as a neutral platform for talks. After all, it is no secret that there are individuals both within the US and in Israel who seek the continuation of conflict rather than a peaceful solution.
However, they find themselves in a state of strategic deadlock. They cannot achieve a full victory without significant escalation, while Iran appears unwilling to back down on critical issues, such as its nuclear program. Although negotiations remain possible, Tehran does not trust Washington, believing that even in the event of an agreement, the US may not adhere to it. Iran knows very well the damage it has caused to Western economies by closing the Strait of Hormuz.
The energy instability, supply chain disruptions, and rising prices are creating conditions of global pressure, with Europe appearing particularly vulnerable due to its dependence on imported energy. These impacts will not be short-lived, nor will the geopolitical consequences, as the crisis could even strike the international standing of the dollar. Challenging the "petrodollar" and a potential shift toward other currencies, such as the Chinese yuan, could reshape the global economic balance, leading to a broader, structural crisis with unpredictable consequences.
The signs of disinformation
While the world holds its breath watching the news and gas station prices, someone is trying to sabotage any possibility of a peace deal between the US and Iran. Exactly two days before the expected start of the second round of talks in Pakistan, the American news outlet Fox News published a very detailed, thorough, and practically academic article regarding the main mediator, the Chief of Army Staff of Pakistan, Marshal Asim Munir.
After this material, Asim Munir must be feeling the... American love to the bone. First, it is alleged that some "anonymous sources in the US intelligence services" were suddenly very worried that Marshal Asim Munir "has close ties with the IRGC and the Iranian leadership." Second, an intelligence report was again urgently sent to the White House, claiming that "the Pakistani military commander Asim Munir is playing a double role in resolving the situation in the Middle East." Third, Pakistan itself (as a country and negotiation platform) has historically been a "deceitful ally of Washington" since the time of the American operation in Afghanistan.
The fury against Munir
It is difficult to understand why Fox News suddenly connected with the Pakistani Marshal, who, generally, was clearly not one of the top figures in the Iranian case. His name appeared several times during the peak of the Indo-Pakistani conflict, where he seemed to have ended it almost single-handedly (with Trump's help, of course). Subsequently, after Iran repelled the US and Israel and progress toward a peaceful pause began, Trump himself announced that the possibility of negotiations in Islamabad was increasing, partly due to the active role of Pakistan's Army Chief of Staff, Marshal Asim Munir: "It’s more likely, you know why? Because the Marshal is doing an excellent job."
According to some reports, the Iranian and American delegations exchanged notes through Asim Munir during the first round of negotiations. As for his "ties with the IRGC and the Iranian leadership," it was precisely for this reason that Asim Munir's candidacy was considered ideal by both sides. As the New York Times wrote at the time, "Asim Munir has close ties with the IRGC, allowing him to transmit messages between the warring sides."
Pakistan also in the crosshairs
The same applies to Pakistan, which is considered a "deceitful ally" and an "unreliable platform." Again, among other options (including Turkey, Oman, and other locations), the parties involved consciously and openly chose Pakistan. The reasons are quite obvious. Pakistan borders Iran, has long-standing and close ties with the oil monarchies and the White House, and most importantly, Pakistan itself has a vested interest in ending the conflict. As the BBC wrote, "Pakistan holds a unique position because it is trusted by the US, Iran, and the Gulf states." The question that arises is: who and why conducted this propaganda against Asim Munir and Pakistan?
The role of Netanyahu
Here, we can recall, for example, a report in the Spanish newspaper El Pais, which described the following episode: when Pakistani mediation reached a sensitive point, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu personally called Trump and urged him not to agree to a ceasefire, insisting on the continuation of the war. We can also recall the words of Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, who directly accused Netanyahu of trying to thwart his mediation efforts by attacking Tehran exactly at the moment when the parties were ready to sit at the negotiating table. In the same vein, we can add an interview given by the Israeli Ambassador to India to the local news agency ANI in early April, in which the envoy stated that "Pakistan cannot be considered a reliable partner" in the negotiations.
Who is undermining the negotiations
Views in Western media suggest that in the Second Round, the two sides came closer than ever to a peaceful solution, and this greatly worried the Israeli leadership. They decided to exploit Trump's suspicions and sow uncertainty regarding Pakistan and its primary mediator. After all, there was only one issue remaining: in a personal phone call with President Trump, Marshal Munir stated that "the US blockade of Iranian ports is an obstacle to the resumption of negotiations," and Trump promised to consider it.
Perhaps all of this is just a coincidence, but for fun, it is worth seeing who wrote the Fox News article. The author is a woman named Efrat Lakhter, who graduated from Tel Aviv University, worked for many years in Israeli television, and won the "Best Young Journalist in Israel" award. Detailed, coordinated information operations do not always require Mossad special forces—sometimes a job as a "foreign journalist for international affairs and the UN" at Fox News Digital is enough.
Negotiations or war to the end
Although Donald Trump describes the extension of the ceasefire, which expires tonight, as "extremely unlikely," and the talks scheduled for today in Islamabad have either been canceled or put on hold, America's war against Iran has clearly exhausted itself and will not continue. Yes, Washington could, of course, theoretically strike again, but the total destruction of Iranian power stations and bridges is out of the question. A new round of talks in Islamabad and an extension of the ceasefire for a period of time are much more likely.
The US intimidation tactics no longer work: Iran openly declares its readiness for a new American attack and has no intention of backing down from its main red line—namely, handing over enriched uranium to America. And Trump cannot declare a full victory (that is, officially end the operation) without receiving this uranium.
Is this, then, a deadlock?
Yes, but the deadlock is encouraging—the double blockade of the Strait of Hormuz showed that the conflict has reached a point where the rest of the world can no longer sit in silence. Almost everyone is pressuring the United States in one way or another, urging it to end this adventure that is causing the upheaval of the entire world—because pressure on Iran, as a victim of aggression, is useless. It can only be advisory.
Trump is already attacking not only Europe but also his own opposition, the Democrats, stating that he will reach a deal much better than that of Obama (meaning the 2015 deal). But the more Trump insists that he is in no hurry, the clearer it becomes that he has neither the time nor the options, because the only path to a "better deal" is to invade Iran, capture Tehran, and install his own proxy there. This option is absolutely unrealistic and fantastical, and in other cases, the Iranians will not back down on the nuclear issue, which is fundamental to them.
American unreliability
Furthermore, Iran is currently discussing whether negotiations with the Americans are even necessary. Clearly, no one believes that the United States will keep the agreement: Trump withdrew from the 2015 deal, then attacked Iran twice, and there is no guarantee he will not do it a third time. If so, why not let the Americans reach the breaking point now—let them see that they cannot crush Iran and then retreat?
There are many supporters of this approach in the country, and they are now demanding the resignation of Foreign Minister Araghchi, the termination of the Islamabad talks, and a war to the end. There are also calls for Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei to speak directly on this matter, but so far the Rahbar has not committed to the negotiations. Mohammad Ghalibaf, speaker of the Iranian parliament and lead negotiator with the Americans, even criticized the Rahbar's representative in the Supreme National Security Council, Saeed Jalili, for speaking against the negotiations.
Is there a rift in the Iranian elite?
In fact, no, and the US bet on the emergence of a traitor is futile. There are, of course, disagreements regarding tactics among the Iranian leadership, but they cannot exist on strategic issues. The division between conservatives and reformers remains, but after the assassination of Rahbar Ali Khamenei, his advisors, and the leadership of the Iranian military and the IRGC, and the subsequent assassination of the "strong man" and unofficial leader of the country, Ali Larijani, no one in Tehran could have any illusions: the Americans will cheat and then kill anyone, regardless of their relationship with one camp or another of the Iranian elite. Negotiating with them is possible only from a position of strength, which in the current situation equates to the Americans realizing their own weakness.
Internal differences
Therefore, the differences between Ghalibaf and Jalili should not be overestimated. Two years ago, they were candidates in the presidential election, where Jalili narrowly lost to Pezeshkian in the first round. The conservative Ghalibaf supported the conservative Jalili, but the reformist Pezeshkian won in the second round. Now all three are in the same boat, sharing the same fate, and have nothing to disagree on.
Negotiations with the Americans are still necessary—even if they do not lead to any agreement, they give Iran a valuable breathing space. Most importantly, they force Washington to recognize the impasse it has reached and accelerate the end of the war and the American withdrawal. Refusing to negotiate is disadvantageous for Iran: having no illusions about the United States, it must simply endure for a little longer. Whether at the negotiating table or under a hail of bombs, the result will be the same. Iran has endured—and therefore it has won.
Trump is a man who... keeps his word
The German Chancellor decided to convene the National Security Council to discuss the lack of fuel. European airlines have begun canceling flights and reducing routes. On average, hospitals in the EU have enough jet fuel for a month and a half, while in countries like Luxembourg, only for a few days. The Energy Commissioner, adjusting his dusty helmet, suggested that Europeans avoid flying, not drive, work from home, and cook on electric stoves instead of gas. He did not explain where they would find the money to pay for the electricity.
The fuel crisis caused by the attack on Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is escalating before our eyes into a crisis for everything from food to fertilizers. Disruptions in the supply chain, disruptions in the supply chain, and the destruction of oil and gas production facilities are all reminiscent of the massive oil shortage of 1973. Naturally, the markets could not help but react. Friday's unhealthy enthusiasm, when investors believed the conflict would soon be resolved, led to a massive crash on Monday. Shares of European airlines and industries plummeted, while oil and gas futures skyrocketed.
The "back and forth" of negotiations
Washington and Tehran may restart, stop, and then start the negotiations again, but essentially, this will change nothing. The American-Israeli aggression has triggered an avalanche of global economic crisis. It will affect everyone whose economy depends on imported energy, fertilizers, and food. But Washington's European vassals will be hit the hardest.
They found themselves in a paradoxical situation: on the one hand, they were forced to cut themselves off from Russian resources—and now they are frantically buying the last cubic meters of our LNG, because after April 25 they will no longer be able to do so. On the other hand, the price of American hydrocarbons has skyrocketed to the point where buying them is pure disaster.
The great "patient"
It turns out that Trump declared war on Iran, but in reality, he defeated Europe once again. He promised to destroy a civilization—and he did, but not that one. Europeans have accepted a new round of deprivation: they will live even worse, but at the same time, they will pay a multi-billion dollar tax to Ukraine, as well as billions for American weapons and American hydrocarbons.
The image that follows is clear: double-digit inflation, business bankruptcies, mass unemployment, malnutrition. European journalists put it elegantly—"negative growth", "flirting with recession," but overall, what is happening looks like a complete, man-made crisis capable of crushing the EU economy. At this stage, the situation seems quite favorable for the United States. However, this is only a short-term perspective. In the long run, Washington will not be able to avoid getting involved in an economic crisis it creates itself.
The lesson of the past
In the 1970s, they also tried to shift the costs onto the Europeans, but they did not fully succeed. The US plunged into a severe recession and was saved only by decoupling the dollar from gold. Then, the Persian Gulf monarchies helped convert the American currency into the petrodollar. Now those monarchies watch in horror as Washington jeopardizes their entire prosperity.
It uses them as a human shield in its disputes with Iran. It blocks the ships carrying their fuel. It watches indifferently as their oil refineries are destroyed. It essentially cuts them off from customers in Asia and Europe. What reason then do these monarchies have to keep the petrodollar afloat? This scenario was previously possible because, in the 1970s, the United States was a net importer of hydrocarbons. Today, it exports them—and treats all competitors harshly. But competitors could react by switching from the petrodollar to the petroyuan. Iran, which charges tolls through the Strait of Hormuz in Chinese currency, is pushing them to do exactly that. The diversification of global reserves is already accelerating. The imminent crisis will further weaken the American dollar. The dollar could thus emerge as the main loser in a World War III, which looks very different from what everyone expected. And Washington will lose along with it.
www.bankingnews.gr
Readers’ Comments