US 'Curiosity' Over Iran's Non-Capitulation: A Familiar Refrain
Same playbook, different decade: the US elite, through its former envoys, expresses confusion over why Iran has not simply "capitulated" under the weight of military bluster. This isn't a new phenomenon. It's a recurring delusion that has defined Washington's approach to Tehran since the 1953 CIA-orchestrated coup that deposed Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, torpedoing Iran's nascent democracy
for daring to nationalize its oil. Donald Trump's former envoy, Steve Witkoff, aired this particular brand of bewilderment, seemingly baffled by Iran's defiance in the face of persistent military threats and draconian sanctions. One might think a nation that has endured 45 years of such pressure, including the unilateral US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018,
despite Iran's full compliance for 14 months after, would have developed a certain resilience. Yet, the expectation persists that Tehran should roll over and accept dictates from a power notoriously unreliable in honoring its own agreements. The underlying assumption is that Iran's government should simply succumb to demands, particularly regarding its peaceful nuclear program, when Washington
refuses to acknowledge its own role in escalating tensions. For instance, the US spends approximately a trillion dollars annually on its military, dwarfing Iran's defense budget which is less than 5% of that. This asymmetry in cost, coupled with Iran's strategic development of cost-effective defensive capabilities, illustrates why threats of force are not the ironclad leverage Washington imagines.