Iranian diplomacy and the Axis of Resistance are navigating one of the most sensitive and complex periods in the modern history of the region. It is a phase that demands strategic firmness, a full understanding of the adversary, and a precise reading of timing and symbolism.
Yet the successive performance of the Iranian diplomatic and governmental delegation raises legitimate and profound questions about whether this team is capable of managing a conflict of such existential importance.
Islamabad: Negotiating From a Position of Loss
The crisis began to take shape during the Islamabad negotiations. Only around forty days after the aggression and assassination of the Supreme Leader, Tehran went to the negotiating table, sending an implicit message that it remained prepared to make concessions and engage in “give and take” with an adversary that had not halted its destructive campaign.
The United States did not hesitate to exploit this opening, tightening its naval blockade of Iran while taking advantage of the supposed atmosphere of de-escalation.
The Pezeshkian-Trump Memorandum: Ink on Paper
The second phase saw the signing of a memorandum whose first clause called for an end to all military operations across all fronts.
Israel, however, quickly violated the agreement and continued its bombardment and expansion. Despite this blatant breach, the Iranian delegation agreed to resume negotiations in Switzerland, reportedly under the justification of
“saving Lebanese lives,”
as officials put it.
On the ground, the occupation continued advancing deep into Lebanese territory, reaching the Ali al-Taher hills and destroying vital infrastructure, while assassinations and killings continued despite the nominal ceasefire.
At the same time, Washington reportedly coordinated a framework with the Lebanese government and Israel, reducing the memorandum to little more than ink on paper.
The violations did not stop there. Washington also pursued alternative routes, including Omani and southern routes, around the Strait of Hormuz, while attacks involving U.S. Central Command, naval assets and civilians continued.
The Peak of Symbolic Defeat: Repeating the Same Mistake
We are now facing a new phase of blockade and aggression, culminating in restrictions on Iranian air traffic.
Despite President Pezeshkian’s aircraft learning of the decision while it was already en route to New York, the presidency did not reconsider its calculations or alter course. Upon arrival, the aircraft reportedly faced severe regulatory complications, including the need for a special authorization from the U.S. Treasury Secretary to obtain fuel.
⁉️ What kind of political calculation leads a president, in the same year in which the Supreme Leader was assassinated by the same U.S. administration under the same president, Donald Trump, to travel to the United States and face such humiliating visa and logistical restrictions?
⁉️ And what illusion leads Pezeshkian to believe that his address to the UN General Assembly can mobilize global public opinion against Washington and expose what Tehran describes as its crimes?
A world that was not moved by the images of children killed in Minab, or by the dismembered bodies of the crew of the Dena warship, whom Trump himself reportedly said were killed
“for entertainment,”
is unlikely to be transformed by a speech from Pezeshkian at the General Assembly.
The situation becomes even more striking with reports of Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi meeting figures such as Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, amid Trump’s direct threats to strike the Ras al-Fas mountain facilities and use nuclear weapons. ❗️
For the author, this reflects deliberate humiliation not only of Tehran, but of the entire Axis.
This is compounded by the conduct of regional allies, who appear increasingly willing to accommodate Washington’s demands: an Iraqi president struggling to implement U.S. preferences, and a Lebanese president governing a country whose sovereignty and resources remain under external pressure.
Conclusion
The question is not an accusation of treason or intent. It is a recognition of a bitter reality: these leaders may not be committing “betrayal” in the classical sense, but their repeated decisions raise serious questions about their ability to manage such a critical phase.
Those who fail to read the timing, land their aircraft under the weight of humiliation, and rush into negotiations under threats and ultimatums risk steering the ship toward disaster.