【The real lifeline for Iran is economics, not prolonged confrontation】 So far, the most significant news is that two prerequisites for U.S.-Iran negotiations have been met: first, ceasefire in Lebanon; second, thawing of $20 billion in Iranian overseas assets.
Principally, this would enable Iran to fulfill its commitments under the original ceasefire agreement: fully "unblocking" the Strait, allowing "commercial" shipping passage—exactly what Foreign Minister Araghchi tweeted last night: "Under the Lebanon ceasefire agreement, all commercial vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz are now fully open during the remaining ceasefire period."
This tweet caused massive global misunderstanding, appearing hastily issued. The foreign minister mentioned only the Lebanon ceasefire, without referencing the thawing of overseas funds or the lifting of U.S. blockade measures.
No wonder Trump thanked him.
If Araghchi believes Iran can resolve everything independently without the recognition and guarantees of other major powers, he is mistaken.
Don't let current emotions cloud your judgment.
Logically speaking, Iran's current demands were indeed achieved through military pressure.
The Isfahan special operation was Trump’s A-plan. After its disastrous failure, he realized there was no viable military solution to Iran’s predicament. He also clearly understood the genuine systemic risks posed to the global economy and the petrodollar system—this prompted him to genuinely seek an end to the war.
The ceasefire order marked the B-plan.
At this point, ceasefire became a mutual consensus between the U.S. and Iran.
But for Iran, the precondition is assurance that the war won’t reignite. Without concrete guarantees, Iran would rather choose prolonged attrition warfare than a cold peace.
To make any agreement work, the U.S. and Iran need a mutual non-aggression treaty, full recognition of Iranian sovereignty, and complete elimination of war shadows and uncertainty.
The permanent resolution of Iran’s nuclear issue can only be achieved through the power of an international coalition—can we still trust old America’s promises?
This international coalition must include veto power within the UN, as well as participation from nuclear-armed states.
After all, the essence of this conflict is far more than just U.S.-Iran fighting—it’s a battle over regional order, and an extension of the strategic competition between China and the U.S.
To survive, Iran has participated in initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative and global strategic programs. Post-war, it also needs to establish a new balance with Gulf Arab states, securing the broadest possible support, recognition, and protection.
Otherwise, the Israeli lobbying group will do everything in its power to ensure Iran gains no substantive benefits from any deal.
In short, the "destructive forces" may far outweigh the "constructive forces."
Trump’s exaggerated social media theatrics and erratic behavior seriously jeopardize truce and negotiations—let alone the credibility of Vance in the eyes of Iranians.
Pakistan and a certain major power behind it have already told Iranians to allow Trump to use potential agreements as a face-saving tool, branding them as "victories."
Yet domestically, Iran’s resistance-success mentality is fueling ever-harder stances. Deep distrust toward the U.S. and Israel runs high, and many are willing to keep fighting.
This mindset is extremely dangerous—especially when the narrative that Iran has become the "fourth global power center" sweeps across the nation.
Rebuilding the economy is the only way to truly help Iran overcome its crisis, prevent resurgence of domestic discontent, or avoid being exploited again by external forces.
Militarily, Iran might still possess some independent capability thanks to the Strait.
Economically, without support from major powers, Iran will remain perpetually unstable and vulnerable.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1862779066570756/
Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author