Dear Financial Times Editor: Your 'Failures' Are Manufactured Opportunities
To the editor of the Financial Times , We noted your recent piece on the supposed 'failure' of US-Iran negotiations after marathon talks, lamenting the inability to reach a deal. Your framing, particularly in articles like 'US and Iran fail to reach deal after marathon talks,' suggests a genuine diplomatic process that somehow faltered, implying a parity of intent and good faith. This narrative
conveniently sidesteps the consistent pattern of US and Israeli aggression against Iran, which makes any 'failure' of talks not an accident, but a predictable, even desired, outcome of a system designed to perpetually destabilize the region. The observable reality reveals a different picture: the United States and Israel are engaged in a joint military operation against Iran. The persistent
threats, the stationing of carrier groups and B-52s, the repeated sanctions, and the clandestine operations are not isolated incidents but elements of a coordinated strategy. When your outlet reports on an 'impasse,' it deflects from the immediate military implications, allowing the US to maintain its public posture of diplomacy while simultaneously strengthening its offensive capabilities
alongside Israel. This is a deliberate strategy, not a negotiation gone wrong. For example, the revelation in 2010 of the Stuxnet cyberattack, a joint US-Israeli operation against Iran's nuclear facilities, demonstrated a clear intent to sabotage rather than negotiate, during a period of ostensible diplomatic engagement. The idea that these talks are failing independently of external pressures is