Trump opens up to dialogue with Iran’s provisional executive after the bombings and promotes the idea of ​​the “Venezuelan way”

Regime change in Iran was one of Trump’s explicit objectives according to the speech he posted on his social network, Truthearly on Saturday. In it he urged the police and military to “complete and absolute surrender” in exchange for amnesty, and urged them to join protesters in overthrowing the leaders of the Islamic republic.

Less than 48 hours later, the president had surprisingly changed his tone. In a telephone conversation with the media The AtlanticTrump revealed that not only was he already in contact with the transition executive in Iran, but that I had already agreed to talk with them. “They want to talk, and I’ve agreed to talk, so we’ll talk. They should have done it sooner.”

In his conversation with the media, the US president reproaches Iran for having refused to negotiate before, when the truth is that this week the first round of talks on the Iranian nuclear program had been completed in Geneva. The parties had scheduled a second meeting in Vienna next week after achieve “advances”according to the mediators.

“They should have done the most practical and easiest thing. They waited too long,” he now lamented. He was ambiguous about who his interlocutors would be. “Many of these people are no longer here,” he explained. to journalist Michael Schererwhom he seemed to want to convince that he had no choice. “They could have reached an agreement. They went too far“.

Will the survivors want to talk?

It is not clear where this olive branch came from in the direction of Washington, at a time when the Iranian regime is weakened, entrenched and in chaos. The main surviving politician is president Masud Pezeshkianwho has activated the succession process. But his weight in control of the country was already in question even before the attack.

Pezeshkian forms a triumvirate with the ayatollah Alireza Arafian expert in Shiite Islamic jurisprudence and philosophy, and the head of the Judiciary, Gholamhosein Mohseni-Ejei. But this three-member Leadership Council that must reconcile the civil and clerical establishments in the transition does not have a representative of the Army and of the Islamic Revolutionary Guardbeyond the authority that the Iranian system confers on the supreme leader over both.

The figure of Ali Larijani, another of the surviving leaders of ‘Epic Fury’, comes into play. He is the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, and a staunch supporter of Khamenei whom the ayatollah himself would have entrusted with the task of make the regime survive. Although he is considered a ‘pragmatist’ willing to reach agreements, his first statements towards the US have been extremely belligerent.

“It is evident that the regime faces a strong discontent by the popular classes,” said Naysan Rafati, expert analyst on Iran at the International Crisis Group, in statements to EL ESPAÑOL. All scenarios are open to the loss of leadership, and the remaining senior officials could be forced to resort to all the means at their disposal to “hold on to power“.

The ‘Venezuelan way’

Larijani himself had received a striking nickname from analysts in recent days: “Iran’s Delcy.” This is a reference to the operation at the beginning of the year in Venezuela in which United States special forces captured the president Nicolas Maduro. Since then, the continuity of the Chavista regime has been guaranteed by the good harmony between Donald Trump and the interim leader, Delcy Rodriguez.

The parallels begin with the preparation before public opinion. The Pentagon had been attacking alleged drug trafficking ships in the Caribbean for weeks and accusing Maduro of leading the ‘Cartel of the Suns’. In Iran, it was the bloody repression of anti-regime protesters that brought condemnation and sanctions from the US. The president, who boasted last summer of “sparing” Khamenei’s life, promised “help” to the insurgents.

If the ‘Venezuelan path’ is underway, it may end up being a disappointment for the Iranian opposition fueled by the shah’s heir, Reza Pahlavi, from exile in the US. Trump also raised the hopes of María Corina Machado, who gave him her Nobel Peace Prize, while threatening Rodríguez with “much worse” consequences than those suffered by Maduro.

Two months later, the Venezuelan opposition is resigned to being patient in the face of evidence that the US is content to protect Rodríguez while he undertakes democratizing measures, instead of forcing a drastic change. The release of political prisoners and the sales of oil under preferential conditions for the United States ensure, as in the famous maxim of The Leopardthat everything changes so that Chavismo endures.

‘The art of the deal’

Would the ayatollah regime accept submission to the United States, its staunch enemy for more than half a century, giving in to the strategic power provided by the sale of its oil? Would he also do it in front of a US president who has made bragging his political brand, going so far as to proclaim himself ‘president of Venezuela’ after the coup against Maduro?

To understand Donald Trump’s modus operandi, it is now a tradition to turn to the book he published with journalist Tony Schwartz in 1987, The art of the deal (‘the art of negotiating’). In it he talks about “think big, ask for a lot, and use the media to your advantage“In other words, it is about confusing the opponent with a great blow – military or economic -, followed by an open door to dialogue to end up in an advantageous position.

This technique has been observed in many of its recent policies, explained by Maxime Lefebvre from ESCP Business School. Los indiscriminate tariffsfor example, allowed him to reach better agreements after negotiating individually with each country. But it doesn’t always turn out well. The united stance of the EU and NATO on Greenland forced him to renounce the annexation, although he did not recognize any defeat. That is also part of the art of the deal.

The situation is now volatile in Iran, a country with a military structure and an economy much more prepared to resist than Venezuela. Trump could settle for presenting the resumption of negotiations as a success and hope that the decapitation of the regime will provide greater concessions. The alternative is a prolonged conflicta headache for a candidate who promised his people “not to involve the United States in any war.”