"Has Iran officially responded?" Here are a few truths you need to know about the US-Israel-Iran conflict.

Latest News: Tasnim News Agency, citing an insider, reports that Iran has officially responded to the 15-point ceasefire agreement proposed by the United States. As of now, Iran’s official side has not issued any formal statement.

1

The conflict between the US and Israel against Iran has entered its 27th day, and the intensity of the fighting has not yet de-escalated.

In the past few days, the only positive developments the outside world has been able to catch on to are signs that the US and Iran may hold talks. But they are only signs.

Iran’s current proposals for negotiations seem dismissive, even laced with mockery.

On the 25th, Iran’s Foreign Minister Araghchi, in an interview, cast doubt on the “talks” claimed by the US side, saying, “The fact that they are talking about negotiations right now is tantamount to admitting defeat.”

Araghchi said that currently, Iran’s policy is to continue resisting. Between the US and Iran there is information exchange, but there are no negotiations.

On the other hand, Iran has also shown enough flexibility in its diplomatic posture.

According to reports in Iran’s official media, on the 25th, a senior Iranian official proposed five conditions for a ceasefire:

First, the US and Israel must “completely stop acts of aggression and assassination.”

Second, the international community should establish an effective mechanism to prevent the US and Israel from taking military action against Iran.

Third, the US and Israel must provide full compensation to Iran.

Fourth, end the war in the Middle East against resistance groups supported by Iran.

Fifth, recognize and guarantee Iran’s lawful right to exercise sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.

Compared with the ceasefire conditions Iran proposed earlier, the overall content is basically the same. The core demands are that the US and Israel should stop fighting and pay compensation, that an effective mechanism be established to prevent invasion, that attacks on the armed forces supported by Iran in the Middle East be halted, and that Iran’s sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz be recognized.

Finally, the last point means: if the US and Israel don’t pay compensation (as things stand, that seems highly unlikely), then I’ll set up a toll booth and get the money back myself.

According to Iran’s position, for vessels belonging to ships of hostile countries in the West, the fee would be $1.5 million to $2 million per ship—equivalent to charging an extra $1 per barrel of oil on average.

Ships from friendly countries—for example, China, Russia, and Pakistan—are free.

Iran’s foreign minister Araghchi previously said that ships transiting through the Strait of Malacca, the Panama Canal, and the Suez Canal are all charged. Only in the Strait of Hormuz has Iran never charged a single cent.

In other words, Iran’s collection of transit fees is “natural justice,” and it is “doing the right thing on behalf of Heaven.”

Also, according to a CCTV reporter’s report, in the early hours of the 26th local time, the chairman of the Civil Commission of Iran’s Islamic Parliament said, “We are seeking a bill that can legally safeguard Iran’s sovereignty, dominion, and regulatory rights over the Strait of Hormuz, and also generate revenue for the country by charging transit fees.”

In other words, Iran is initiating legislative procedures as a legal groundwork for collecting transit fees.

2

This war has been going on for almost a month. Looking at it, you can roughly see the main demands of each side involved.

For the United States, which is stuck in an awkward dilemma of how to advance or retreat, its main demand right now is to withdraw in a dignified manner from the Middle East conflict, while at the same time not losing control of the Strait of Hormuz. The Trump administration hopes to smooth out domestic gasoline prices, curb inflation, and win a victory in the midterm election. If it can go one step further, the Gulf states should ideally come up with a large sum of money as military compensation, and then allied countries would dispatch troops to escort in the Strait of Hormuz.

Israel’s goals seem to be long-term and firm: first, overthrow Iran’s political regime; second, dismantle Iran’s model of regional autonomy and rule by vassal fiefdoms; third, eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability, remove Iran’s conventional forces, and completely remove the military threat to Israel.

The Gulf Arab states want the US and Israel to beat Iran badly so that Iran completely loses its ability to threaten the Gulf states. If both sides suffer heavy losses, it would be even better if Israel is also beaten badly. And if the US is severely hit and finally withdraws from the Middle East, that would be even better.

Iran’s demands are also very clear: to beat Israel badly or even bring it down as a country; after the US is dealt a severe blow, withdraw from the Middle East; have the Strait of Hormuz belong to Iran; and set up a toll booth for profit. Iran’s lackeys, meanwhile, will keep order and manage things in their own areas.

So, right now, there are four options facing the United States:

First, the US and Israel escalate the intensity of their strikes. But relying only on airstrikes and bombing cannot achieve regime change, nor can it completely destroy Iran’s nuclear capability or neutralize Iran’s war-making ability. In the end, it may slide into a war of attrition.

Second, suddenly escalate the war. Once US forces are deployed in place, attack fiercely across land, sea, and air, launching an island-seizure and ground combat campaign.

Third, slowly de-escalate the war, and let the US and Iran sit down to negotiate terms. In the short term, negotiations are unlikely to yield results; ultimately it may fall into a long-term pattern of “fighting and talking,” then “talking and fighting.”

Fourth, the United States suffers an actual failure. The US finds a step to declare victory, leaves a mess behind for Israel and its allies, shifts its focus elsewhere to find a way to get by—such as Cuba.

No matter how you look at it, none of these options seems to work very well.

If the US wants to overthrow Iran’s current ruling regime and force Iran to comply, the only way is to launch a ground war.

Judging by paper strength, there’s no problem for the US and Israel to send ground forces to invade and enter Iran’s homeland—for example, taking Halq Island.

But if you want to stand firm and control the Strait of Hormuz, you must risk withering firepower retaliation and pull off three things: first, eliminate all firing positions of Iran along the north coast of the Persian Gulf; second, back against the Persian Gulf, build a line of defenses stretching over a thousand kilometers along the coastline; and third, be able to hold it.

From Iran’s current pattern of counterattacks, if the US does these three things, it will pay a huge price in casualties—and even then, it may not succeed in the end.

Iran has already threatened that once Iran’s homeland faces a ground invasion, it will cooperate with the Houthis to blockade the Strait of Mandeb.

The Strait of Mandeb connects the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, and it is a major maritime artery connecting Europe, Asia, and Africa. Up to 9 million barrels of oil per day (12% of the world’s supply) pass through it.

This is another major “killer move” from Iran.

Even if the US and Israel successfully land in Iran and control the north coast of the Persian Gulf, it does not mean the war is over. To the north of Iran is Russia, separated by the Caspian Sea. If the US gets stuck in a prolonged war of attrition in Iran, Russia will certainly provide military assistance to Iran.

But if the US military doesn’t fight a ground war, it can’t control the Strait of Hormuz.

Losing control over the Strait of Hormuz means the US “protection umbrella” is no longer effective, which will gradually lead to the decline of American global hegemony.

3

In my view, the United States’ current foreign policy has completely failed.

The biggest mistake is the US’s unilateralist policy. It has not only failed to maintain US global hegemony, but has also opened up trade routes across the Eurasian continent, and even helped bring about a Eurasian trade community.

In addition, cracks have appeared in the transatlantic alliance between the US and Europe. The US’s capriciousness has caused damage to the US-Europe relationship that cannot be repaired.

There are many reasons, and one of them is the deep loss of credibility on the part of the US.

In recent years, the US has repeatedly defaulted—breaking promises and flipping its stance—so many times that nobody takes what the US says seriously anymore.

Especially this time: the US and Israel did something that goes beyond even the bottom line of cognition.

Before the US representative even sat down at the negotiation table in Geneva, the US and Israel directly assassinated Iran’s entire top leadership. The world was shocked.

All countries are left with question marks above their heads, looking baffled: “Is this allowed?”

So the logical question is: if this kind of thing can be done, what can’t be done? This sends a warning bell to all countries.

Taking the lead, the US has broken the rules and order of modern international politics.

Therefore, once the Iran conflict began, the US had effectively already lost.

First, assassination tactics may seem direct and they look great at first; but the methods are despicable—“losing the way.” Those who lose the way are never aided by many. Even the US’s allies can’t wholeheartedly support it with a clear conscience. That’s why later the US asked allies to escort in the Strait of Hormuz, and everyone said they wouldn’t go. Part of the reason Europe doesn’t want to get pulled into the war is one thing; more importantly, this war shouldn’t have been fought in the first place, and even if it is fought, it doesn’t have popular support.

Second, assassinating Iran’s leadership and then launching a military invasion dealt too harsh a blow to Iranians’ sense of self-respect. No matter how you frame it, Iran is an ancient country with a 3,000-year civilization history. Persians built the world’s first empire spanning Europe, Asia, and Africa as early as the 6th century BC. The US and Israel’s actions have ignited unity within Iran. Nationalist sentiment surged. What was originally a political conflict between the US and Israel and Iran turned into a national conflict in Iran that was unified against the outside, becoming a question of Iran’s national survival and life-or-death. How could this war possibly be fought and won?

Third, in modern warfare, the gap in weapons technology has shrunk visibly to the naked eye. Everyone is using artificial intelligence; everyone is using global navigation; everyone can produce drones. With a bit of an industrial base, you can even build missiles with your own hands. It is said that Ukraine has already deployed humanoid armed robots on the battlefield today. Iran, as a country with vast land area depth and abundant oil and gas resources, also has a decent industrial foundation and autonomous R&D weapon systems. In challenging the US and Israel, it actually has the confidence.

Iran has confidence—but the key is whether it has the courage to fight a protracted war, the toughness to see it through to the end, and the resolve to overthrow霸权主义.

The regions monopolized by the US are too wide—like using ten fingers to press down on ten fleas. In the end, it’s inevitable that not even one flea can be caught.

As the saying goes.

Special Contributor: Huang Yidao

Massive information, precise analysis—on the Sina Finance APP