The US and Israel struck Iran despite headway in negotiations. What is the endgame here?

On the international chessboard, no piece can move as freely as the United States. It moves vertically, horizontally and diagonally, across any number of squares. Regime change in Venezuela, blockades on Cuba, strikes on Iran, all within a few months. It can move north, east, south and west.

And Iran? Iran is the opposing king trapped in a corner by not only the king and rook (Israel), but also its own pawns — the many factions inside Iran that the Israelis have been funding to rise up against it. A war against it from abroad and at home.

In refusing to capitulate, the Iranians have decided they would rather die on their feet than be checkmated on their knees in front of their rivals.

By the day prior to the strikes, the US had at least 50 per cent of its deployable air power around the Middle East poised to attack Iran, including more than 250 combat aircraft. As Professor Pape from the University of Chicago notes, the US had never deployed this much force against a potential enemy and not launched strikes.

All the while, the Iranians were making significant concessions to the US, including importantly that they would even allow American inspectors into the country for verification on their nuclear programme. Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff remarked that Trump was surprised that the Iranians were not completely capitulating with this much firepower at their doorstep. But Trump had fundamentally misread the Iranian regime’s goal in entering these discussions; which was to prevent their evisceration without subjugation.

At the heart of this, is the Iranian government’s core principle after the revolution of 1979: independence (istiqlal). Iran’s refusal to give up its ballistic missile programme........

© Dawn Prism