Trump gives Iran stark choice in display of raw power to both Tehran and Europe | Donald Trump

Discussing the dilemma facing Western diplomats in the face of the Iranian nuclear program, Henry Kissinger wrote in 2006: “Diplomacy never works in a vacuum. Do not be convinced of the rhetoric of its practitioners but rather a balance of incentives and risks.”

The balance of incentives and risks was rarely put in front of Iran’s leaders as it is now.

Donald TrumpEither by designing or by a dedicated stumbling towards the strategy, Iran has left a blatant option: either returning to the negotiating table and accepting the “deal” offer, or the vision of Israel-perhaps with us-the support, gave its security apparatus in Iran, its first nuclear program and the economy in the reasons for what the final exercises can be in the maximum pressure.

If we rule through his statements and actions over the past 48 hours, Trump is also trying to prove that any deal is seen on his conditions, and that he is a single decision maker. It is an attempt to offer raw energy not only for Iran, but Europe.

In a move designed to confirm the lack of connection of Europe and indeed its contempt for the multiplicity of the parties that symbolize it G7Trump abandoned the Canadian summit on the early day. He left such G7s early before, but unprecedented.

One of the leading diplomats asked whether Trump was mainly transferred to Washington on a diplomatic mission to secure peace or joining the war against Iran, frankly: “We don’t know!”

The air force also left one, Emmanuel Macron tried to form the narration He left by saying that the ceasefire was at the forefront, if not soon. Trump then, in a tone of some taste, led to the extraction of the French leader “who is looking for advertising” in stark phrases usually. “Whether it is intentionally or not, Emmanuel always makes mistakes,” he published a social truth. He said it was “much greater” than the ceasefire.

In fact, the American diplomats in the Group of Seven rejected the call to a ceasefire in the joint statement in the Iran and Israel crisis, the noble to issue a joint statement in the first place.

In order to secure any kind of statement, European leaders retreated, leaving eight sentences implicitly approved by Israel’s actions by saying that we “confirm that Israel has the right to defend itself. We repeat our support for Israel’s security.”

The four European leaders who left high -level in the Rocky Mountains left with the Japanese Prime Minister, Chijo Ishiba, and other international leaders whose host now invited them to restore it for the second day of the summit without the United States. Avoid thinking for Ukrainian President, Voludmir Zelinski, and Mexican President Claudia Shinbom, who was held with Trump, who was scheduled with the Group of Seven on Tuesday.

It looks again as if Europe has left as a passer -by of history, and it is ingenious in formulating the formulation and advertisements of mutual consent while decisions are made by one -sided engines ready to use destroyed force. The sword was rarely stronger than the pen. Fortunately, Russia was fortunate that it has always seen the seven group, a club that was excluded from the invasion of Crimea, as “somewhat useful.”

In fairness to European leaders, they tried to play a role in securing a deal. Three ministers of the Europeans spoke to their Iranian counterpart, Abbas Aragichi, on the phone at the request of the United States.

The nucleus of the proposal they transferred was that Iran should actually submit an unconditional ceasefire, and to end all the talk about escalation. Tehran’s threats must be canceled to remove all UN weapons inspectors. The idea of ​​the proposal to the Iranian parliament calls for Iran to leave the Non -Proliferation Treaty, an introduction to the acquisition of a nuclear bomb. American assets in the region should not be exposed. The cancellation of the escalation must be a priority, because any escalation will lead to a catastrophic conflict, which no one can control, as the UK Foreign Minister said, David Lami.

Sources said that Aragchi returned to his argument that Iran could not sustain the weapons without Israel doing the same. Then the result of these discussions was transferred to Marco Rubio, US Secretary of State, by Lami and French Foreign Minister, Jean -Nawil Barrot.

One of the Western diplomats admitted that they were sending messages to the Iranians about the unprecedented United States’ Israeli strategy. Lami had previously alluded to his differences in general, stressing that the United Kingdom was not agreeing or participating in Israel’s military action.

He agreed that the Iranian nuclear program should have been restricted, but “basically, no military action could put an end to Iran’s nuclear capabilities.” He added that Iran is to choose its leaders.

Again in Canada Macron also warned against changing the forced system: “Those who believe that bombing from the outside can save a country despite itself and against itself was always wrong.”

Now everything depends on what the United States proposes. Speaking of one air force on his way to Washington, Trump said he wanted a “A real end” with Iran “completely surrendering” On its nuclear program. This on the surface means the end of Iran’s right to enriching uranium, the Red Tehran line because it touches its sovereignty. But the decreasing Iran will have to decide whether it must, in order to preserve the self, to give up any right to draw the red lines. Europe is likely to realize the punishment after the past few days.