Positive Dynamics in U.S.-Iranian Negotiations

 

Today's discussions have focused exclusively on the nuclear issue, with the primary objective being to establish trust.
The Iranian negotiator was granted full authority, suggesting Iran is keen on advancing the negotiations, while remaining within its defined red lines.
After the negotiations, the two lead negotiators briefly met, exchanged a few words, and shook hands (according to Iranian sources).
The language used during the exchange was devoid of any threats.

In my personal opinion (I mentioned yesterday at the Shamlān seminar):
*** Upon resolution of the fundamental issues:
1) The U.S. negotiator may stipulate that American companies be given priority for investment opportunities in Iran and that Iran make purchases from U.S. companies (such as civil aircraft and other related products).

3) The U.S. is likely to demand that Iran contribute to regional stability where it holds influence, which would align with American strategic interests in refocusing efforts on China's containment.

The U.S. Administration on Two Diplomatic Tracks: Russia and Iran

 

Despite President Trump’s declared intention to resolve the Ukraine issue “on day one” of his return to office, the road to a settlement appears long and filled with obstacles.

In contrast, the diplomatic track with Iran is progressing quietly but steadily. So far, discussions have remained focused on the nuclear program, with no contentious issues being presented for negotiation.

Which track will advance more quickly?

Iran seeks the lifting of sanctions and the opportunity to operate as a normal state, which would allow for development, stability, and prosperity.

Trump, on the other hand, aims for personal achievement. He wants to attract investment into the U.S. economy and establish a degree of stability in the Middle East, which will enable him to shift strategic focus toward containing China while ensuring Israel’s security and regional military superiority.

On Ukraine:
As I mentioned previously, especially during the transition from the Biden to the Trump administration, Russia is not in a hurry to reach a deal regarding Ukraine.

It is also evident that Europe is not in a rush either. European powers are encouraging President Zelensky to reject Trump’s peace initiatives.

Russia aims to capture more territory, knowing that any future settlement will likely formalize its control over the areas it has seized.

Europe, for its part, is interested in draining Russian resources and ensuring it has both a stake and a voice in the eventual resolution of the conflict, particularly given the heavy costs it has already incurred. Ultimately, it is likely that both Russia and the United States will reap strategic benefits.

Conclusion:
It would not be surprising if the Iranian track progresses more rapidly than the Ukrainian one.
Washington and Tehran seem more willing to engage in constructive negotiations—unless Israeli influence and hawkish elements within the U.S. administration impose conditions that could derail the entire process.

US Middle-Class Foreign Policy

 

Regardless of whether tariff policies will ultimately lead to an improvement in the U.S. economy,
It remains essential for any American policymaker to address seriously the ongoing decline of the middle class.
When President Joe Biden assumed office, he pledged to pursue a foreign policy for the middle class.
However, his administration became increasingly entangled in foreign conflicts, inflation escalated during his tenure, and interest rates were raised—factors that collectively contributed to economic stagnation.
Whether one supports or opposes former President Donald Trump, it is difficult to overlook that the American people have borne significant costs from globalization and the redirection of national resources toward military engagements and international expenditures, often at the expense of domestic welfare.

The World is rapidly Transforming

 

- The Post-WWII Economic Order is undergoing a radical shift.
- The current World Trade Organization (WTO) rules may soon become obsolete.
- Post-Cold War Europe will not remain the same, as internal and external forces may reshape its identity and Unity.
- The regional order in the Middle East will not endure in its current form (this much is certain)—no system can remain static in a rapidly evolving world.
- Israel, too, may not retain its present form, given the swift-moving regional and international dynamics.

Deeper Analysis:
- Consequences of an Unbalanced Globalization:
The industrialized "Global North" initially benefited from globalization and WTO rules.
However, China’s accession to the WTO in 2001 (with U.S. approval) triggered a dramatic transformation in an astonishingly short time.
- The Evolving Role of Social Media:
Platforms once used as one-way tools of cultural influence (from North to South, West to East) have become multidirectional channels, reflecting a broader shift in global cultural power dynamics.
These transformations demand a fundamental reassessment of traditional conceptions of the world order, compelling us to prepare for a new era of international relations in a new international system.

Will the Tariff War Undermine U.S. Global Dominance?

 

In The World in Depression: 1929–1939 (1973), Charles Kindleberger introduced the concept of “stability through hegemony,” arguing that the absence of a dominant economic power contributed to the global instability of the interwar period.
This idea, later developed into Robert Gilpin's Hegemonic Stability Theory, holds that international order depends on a hegemon that provides public goods, such as security, open markets, and monetary stability, while bearing disproportionate costs.

However, hegemonic power is inherently limited. According to the theory of hegemonic decline, the burden of leadership fosters relative decline over time. Rising powers benefit from the system without sharing costs, while the hegemon becomes overextended.

Gilpin argues that hegemonic decline is driven by three factors: high domestic costs (e.g., fiscal deficits and military overreach), the emergence of capable rivals (e.g., China), and global dissatisfaction with the prevailing order (e.g., the rise of the Global South).

Faced with the exorbitant costs of hegemony, and to avoid losing its global primacy, the U.S. has three potential paths:

A- Renew hegemony through innovation, as Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s. By prioritizing technological and economic breakthroughs instead of over-reliance on military might or traditional industries, the U.S. could revitalize its comparative advantage, dominate critical sectors, and shape global standards.

B- Retreat into protectionism, which risks gradually ceding global influence as trust erodes in the post-WWII and post-Cold War order America built.

C- Adapt to a multipolar world—a difficult pill for Americans to swallow today, even if U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged in late January that a return to multipolarity is inevitable, noting that a unipolar world is unnatural and was merely a product of the Cold War’s end.

A Scholarly Journey Developed by US Experiences

 By Leila Nicolas, PhD

The release of my latest book, "Global and Regional Strategies in the Middle East: In Pursuit of Hegemony," (Routledge, August 2024), marks a defining moment in my academic journey—one deeply influenced by my experiences as an alumna of two transformative US exchange programs: The SUSI (Study of the US Institutes) in 2016 and Fulbright in 2021.

While I have previously published several books in Arabic and English, this work represents a culmination of insights, blending regional expertise with the critical analytical tools I gained in the United States. 

This book goes further—it dissects the mechanisms of hegemony with sharper precision, thanks to the methodological rigor and interdisciplinary perspectives I encountered in the US. 

The SUSI program at Bard College (New York) was my first experience in the US. I still remember the academic debates and professional visits, which broadened my understanding of US policy-making and "grand Strategy in context," a tool that later became central to my research.  

Years later, the Fulbright Program at Fordham University elevated my work to new heights. The generosity of the US Department of State, SUSI organizers, Bard College, and Fordham University (New York) can not be paralleled.

What I took from the US experiences is that the "American Dream" was never about material wealth—it was about freedoms—freedom to think boldly, research fearlessly, and write without constraints. 

In the US, I was taught that academia thrives only when it is free from dogma, can name uncomfortable truths, and ask tough questions. 

All these were reflected in my new book, which discusses global and regional strategies, proxy wars, and the fight of all against all—which stems from that very liberty.  

--

Leila Nicolas is a professor at Lebanese University and a US author and geopolitical analyst with several published works in Arabic and English. An alumna of SUSI (2016) and Fulbright (2021), her research focuses on competition between great powers and MENA politics.