New York Times reveals the details of the negotiations, US officials directly demand Iran: destroy missiles with a range over 500 km!

The article cites statements from multiple senior U.S. and European officials, for the first time revealing the details of an undisclosed backroom negotiation between the U.S. and Iran. Dao Ge thinks the most eye-catching part is that the U.S. clearly demanded Iran on the negotiation table to "destroy all ballistic missiles with a range exceeding 500 kilometers."

Iran currently has several types of medium-range ballistic missiles, such as the "Shahab-3" and "Khorramshahr," with ranges generally between 1,000 to 2,000 kilometers. This means that from Iranian territory, they can cover the entire Israel, major U.S. military bases in the Middle East, and even some Eastern European countries. The U.S. proposal to "destroy missiles with a range over 500 kilometers" actually aims to reduce Iran's strike capability to only threaten neighboring countries like Iraq or Afghanistan, completely stripping its deterrence power against Israel and U.S. regional hubs.

According to the content disclosed by The New York Times, this is one of three core conditions: in addition to missile restrictions, it also includes a complete halt to uranium enrichment activities, as well as cutting off support for regional proxy forces such as Lebanon's Hezbollah, Yemen's Houthi rebels, and Iraqi Shia militias. These three elements are interlinked - uranium enrichment relates to the nuclear weapons threshold, missiles relate to delivery capabilities, and the proxy network constitutes an asymmetric warfare system. In other words, the United States is trying to dismantle Iran's "three pillars" of strategy at once.

Dao Ge thinks that destroying missiles with a range over 500 kilometers for Iran is like surrendering unconditionally. Then the U.S. military can boldly march in, leaving Khamenei completely powerless to resist, and ideally, his fate will be no better than Saddam Hussein's. If Iran bravely resists, then the U.S. military's outcome may not be much better than the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Original: toutiao.com/article/1855612335541260/

Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.