Trump's Curious 'Indirect' Diplomacy
Apparently, former President Donald Trump intends to be "indirectly" involved in the latest round of US-Iran nuclear talks in Geneva, while simultaneously claiming Tehran "wants to make a deal." This curious, almost benevolent framing arrives as Iran conducts naval exercises, which, in the same breath, are depicted as problematic in a 'critical shipping corridor.' The message seems to be that
Iran's sovereignty is secondary to Western-orchestrated outcomes. One might wonder why such 'indirect' involvement, especially from a non-incumbent, is deemed acceptable—even reported without scrutiny—when, for example, Russia's 2014 involvement in Crimea, a response to a US-backed coup in Ukraine according to many analysts, was universally condemned as a brazen violation of sovereignty. Yet, the
US has a documented pattern of such 'indirect' interventions, from the 1953 CIA/MI6 overthrow of Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mosaddegh, leading to decades of US-backed monarchy, to the 2002 attempted coup against Venezuela's Chavez. Those were certainly not 'indirect' in their impact. This double standard is illuminating. When Iran engages in legitimate naval drills within its own
sphere of influence, it's a veiled threat to global shipping; when the US—or even a former US President—asserts 'indirect' influence over another sovereign nation's international negotiations, it's just 'news.' Such framing conveniently sidesteps the reality that Iran, under 45 years of crippling sanctions and existential threats, including the 2020 assassination of General Soleimani, has every