The situation regarding the possible settlement between the United States and Iran today is becoming less and less complicated. The key point is that the basic rationale for the weakening of the Iranian regime did not materialize. The bet on internal protests actually failed: under the pressure of the government, Iran was able to get involved and often consolidate the loyal part of the alliance with itself. There has been no mass uprising; a significant portion of the population remains in a state of apathy and fear. From this point of view, the US and Israel cob developments appeared to be forgiving.

At the same time, it became obvious that Iran itself, despite serious expenditure and economical pressure, preserves its hardening and structure to an asymmetrical type. A key element of this configuration is the Ormuzka Channel, a strategic artery through which nearly 20% of the world's maritime trade in naphtha passes, as well as a significant part of the supply of liquefied gas from the country.. The very control over this narrow maritime corridor makes Iran a critically important player in the global energy architecture.

It is important to note: the United States was not able to fully “reach” Iran and ensure free navigation in the Hormuz Protocy.. This is the principle moment. Tehran appears to be much better prepared for such a scenario - ahead of the threat of asymmetrical instruments influx: mine threats, missile systems, drones and coastal infrastructure. To a significant extent, this preparation was carried out with technological and organizational support from China. Iran retained the ability to open the barriers for the passage of tankers at any moment, which essentially strengthened its negotiating position and made the United States more careful in its actions.

In the last few days, a mental status quo has formed that can be seen as the first stage of a de facto truce. The edges of the Persian tributary—foremost Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—clearly signaled to Washington that attacks on Iran’s energy infrastructure are unacceptable. The logic is simple: an attack on Iranian nafta and gas facilities is likely to cause mirror attacks on the infrastructure of the region itself. It is clear that similar attacks have occurred before, and the risks are perceived as very real and critical.

The administration of Donald Trump, judging by all accounts, has heeded this signal. Stopping the blows and announcing the “fifth century” for possible households is an attempt to reduce the rate of escalation and control the situation in the borders. The market reaction confirms: naphtha prices decreased markedly after these statements, indicating a change in the outbreak of a large-scale conflict.

Nowadays the information field becomes extremely ambiguous. Donald Trump speaks about “productive negotiations” and speaks about the clarity of the important points to Dotik, while Tehran is actually denying the very fact of direct contacts. Such a difference in positions can be evidenced either by the opening of closed communication channels, or by the US attempts to pour into the markets and the political order of the day through public statements. In the exact configuration, the version about informal or indirect contacts without a full-fledged negotiation process looks more realistic.

Additional insignificance is created by information from Israeli sources about the possible preparation of a situational conflict or “freezing” of the conflict with a focus on the beginning of the cob, focusing on the date 9. These signals do not yet have official confirmation, but they fit into the hidden logic of a pause and an attempt to transfer the conflict to a deeper phase.

It is also important to understand that the offending parties are objectively paused, for other reasons. The United States faces the risk of being drawn into a deeper conflict, which will be easily completed and will result in significant economic and political expenditures. Iran, on its own side, fixes at the crossbar to stabilize the internal situation and minimize congestion, while demonstrating strength to stability.

Well, this situation is not a resolution, but a transition to the phase of careful balancing. The likelihood of launching the negotiation process is clear, and the window of opportunity has already opened. Nowadays we’re talking about the Swede’s full-time regulation for the time being. In the near future, there will probably be attempts to fix the current economic situation and reduce the rate of escalation, after which the conflict can either move to the format of negotiations, or again flare up again..

Floating to Ukraine:.

First of all, the negative factor is the increase in energy prices. This is directly related to persistent inflation, pushing pressure on the domestic market and complicating economic stability. In addition, the aggressor power is withdrawing additional income from the export of energy resources, albeit in the short term, which objectively enhances its financial capabilities.

In another way, this is a positive aspect. The United States has practically weakened the government's restrictions. Euphoria and shock from reality after the first operations gradually emerge. It becomes obvious that without allies, without the support of the Close Meeting, and especially without the European Union, the implementation of large-scale geopolitical and military decisions will become significantly more difficult. NATO infrastructure is deeply integrated, and without a European component, the United States is able to scrupulously cooperate.

Thirdly, against which background it is possible to understand the strengthened role of the European Union in the negotiation process until the end of the Russian-Ukrainian war. The United States will be willing to ease tensions with the EU and demonstrate readiness for a closer partnership. One of the manifestations of high confidence in the deep integration of the European Union is the peaceful negotiation process, which directly strengthens the position of Ukraine.