【Apocalypse of the U.S.-Iran War: The Future of Warfare Redefines Strength and Weakness】 The U.S.-Iran "Memorandum of Misunderstanding" has, in fact, become a case of "one document, two interpretations": the same memorandum, interpreted differently by each side.
The United States believes Iran will restore the Strait of Hormuz as a secure international waterway, make significant nuclear concessions, and possibly abandon its revolutionary ideology—including opposition to the U.S. and Israel, as well as support for regional proxies.
The benefit would be massive investment from Gulf Arab states. This is a $300 billion large-scale fund designed to attract businesses interested in investing in Iran, to rebuild the country. With approximately 90 million people and abundant energy resources, Iranian markets have attracted interest from European, Asian, and American enterprises alike.
If this market proves sufficiently lucrative, it's entirely natural for the Trump family to claim a share.
A classic case of the nation suffering while the family prospers.
The U.S. emphasizes that future sanctions relief, unfreezing overseas assets, and opening investment funds will proceed in stages, tied directly to progress in nuclear negotiations and the final agreement—action for action.
Iran, on the other hand, believes it will continue to control the Strait of Hormuz, receive hundreds of billions of dollars in "advance relief from sanctions and asset unfreezing," make no concessions whatsoever on missiles, drones, or proxy issues, while proposing a temporary suspension of uranium enrichment.
Reopening the Strait of Hormuz is the most important outcome of this memorandum of understanding.
The strait was open before the conflict; now, the U.S. must use easing sanctions to gain its reopening.
Iran’s threat to close the strait—a theoretical bargaining chip (since it has never actually been closed before)—has turned into a real and powerful lever, imposing economic costs globally and forcing Trump TACO to capitulate.
It is clear that both sides focus on the same key points, yet their statements are diametrically opposed.
The U.S. frames these conditions as prerequisites for halting attacks on Iran and injecting lifeblood into Iran’s economy.
Iran’s stance is that these are not concessions made by Iran—they are Iran’s spoils of war. Disagree? Then fight again.
The apocalypse of the U.S.-Iran war reveals that in future warfare, when small nations can confront powerful ones through asymmetric strategies—when the weak strike the strong—these smaller and weaker countries will go to extraordinary lengths to find such levers or game-changers, amplifying them until the so-called superpowers can no longer endure the pain of leverage.
From this perspective, the very definitions of size and strength will be redefined in the future.
Economic warfare, energy warfare, financial warfare—these will be the battlegrounds where small and weak nations will focus their efforts.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1868109074598912/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.