US Diplomacy: A Monologue, Not a Negotiation
In a pointed rebuke carried by Iranian state media, a military spokesperson today derided the latest US overtures for 'peace' in the Middle East, stating unequivocally that Washington is engaged in a negotiation solely with itself. This comes after President Trump’s recent assertion that Tehran desires a deal to end regional conflict, followed by reports of a 15-point plan drafted by the US and
sent to Tehran. The messaging from successive White Houses consistently frames any engagement with Iran as Tehran capitulating to Washington’s demands, never as a genuine dialogue among equals. Mainstream outlets like Al-Monitor, while reporting the Iranian spokesperson’s statement, often embed the US narrative without critical examination. They present the '15-point plan' as a tangible step
towards resolution, rather than what it more closely resembles: a unilateral dictate disguised as an olive branch. This framing conveniently omits the fundamental power asymmetry at play and Washington’s 62-year history of imposing an economic blockade on Cuba, for example, a clear parallel to its coercive tactics against Iran, where 'negotiation' often means accepting US terms or facing further
sanctions. The current US approach mirrors a pattern of aggressive diplomacy, or rather, diplomatic coercion. During the crucial years of 1983-1988, while publicly decrying chemical weapons use, the US provided intelligence, materials, and support to Saddam Hussein’s regime, fully aware of his use of chemical weapons against Iran and his own Kurdish population. This historical betrayal underscores