We live in a society in which doctors in the most extravagant areas of “Political Sciences” proliferate. Many of them make comments on television channels’ opinion programs, in a way that is both more unreasonable and more effective to capture the largest possible number of viewers. Which leads me to wonder whether any of them have studied the political thought of Cantinflas, who won a Golden Globe in the field of comedy, a close relative of party life. Although he died in 1993, it seemed appropriate to review his interventions in the art of politics and imagine how he would have reacted to the spiel that Donald Trump gave this week about the State of the Union.
Cantinflas was a shrewd man and as a neighbor of the United States, as he was Mexican, he would certainly pay much attention to the American president’s speech. I would have, I have no doubt, been delighted. Trump proved, once again, to be one of their own, an extraordinary speaker in a style that the Mexican character appreciated: the circular speech. In other words, an endless speech, which repeatedly returns to the same themes, as if the speaker were locked in an arena with no way out.
Trump, in his State of the Union 2026, repeatedly addressed the issues of immigration, the success of his government, particularly in the area of the economy, the incompetence of the Democrats, patriotism, the eight peace agreements reached, the negotiations with Iran. The intentions of the speech were clear: to show genius, project power and create divisions. Cantinflas already said that these are the main weapons of politicians, to which I would add intrigue. The comedian would give Trump’s speech top marks.
I would, however, be worried with regard to Iran. Although Trump talks about negotiations and says he prefers an agreement – yesterday a new and strange session of talks took place in Geneva, with two interlocutors from the American side and two dozen coming from Tehran, a contrast that reveals the differences in expectations – the reality is that we are very close to an armed intervention. I don’t know if it’s hours or days, but the signs don’t seem to deceive. Benjamin Netanyahu could enlighten us, as he is certainly within the issue.
I already wrote here, in the DN edition of February 6, that a confrontation between the USA and Iran would be “profoundly dangerous and complex”. For the region and for several other parts of the globe.
The White House, however, values triumphalism more than diplomacy. In this matter, it is completely similar to the dominant position in the Kremlin: the superpowers no longer believe in talks. Now, it’s about crushing your opponents.
It wasn’t like that during the Cold War, especially in the last decade that ended with Mikhail Gorbachev’s term in office. My generation at the United Nations and in international diplomacy will remember that Gorbachev defended, when he spoke to Washington or in New York, the idea of persistent negotiations and openly criticized all decisions that he considered thoughtless, unbalanced and dangerous for global stability.
It was because I worked with people like this, on both sides of the wall, that I learned that, to win, in the incessant search for respect for International Law, you have to be persistent and patient. This message should be remembered by those in charge in Washington, in the case of Iran. It would also be relevant to highlight with the White House and the Kremlin another lesson from the times when agreements reached at the UN and in other multilateral forums were respected: it is generally a big mistake to underestimate the adversary.
At the UN General Assembly, in September 2025, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian assured that his country does not intend to build a nuclear bomb. Words are worth what they are worth and, in politics, they often cannot resist a gust of wind. For most leaders, good political practice means being skilled in the art of lying well in the saddle. Pezeshkian’s promises certainly do not stand up to the vision of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who sees the USA and Israel as his country’s mortal enemies and the production of missiles and probably nuclear weapons as his regime’s only salvation. But the truth is that the regime suffers from a much greater threat: the majority of Iranians want to end the theocratic dictatorship of the ayatolahs, a terribly repressive, antiquated and unacceptable power in light of Human Rights standards.
In a world of courageous people, the United Nations should be tirelessly trying to promote a meeting between Donald Trump and Ali Khamenei. A direct, face-to-face dialogue between the two. It would be difficult, but not impossible. This was one of the lessons we learned from Winston Churchill and many other statesmen of high caliber. Churchill believed in the effectiveness of summit meetings. He would have been stunned to learn that Trump had sent poor Witkoff and real estate investor Kushner to Geneva to discuss a solution to a confrontation that could turn the Middle East and other parts of the world upside down. They don’t measure up. Especially when on the other side is a nation that has millennial pride. And that you feel inspired and protected by a divine force. These types of illusions have a lot of strength.
Leave a Reply