Sheikh Sameer
“You can’t negotiate with a person who says what is mine is mine and what is yours is negotiable.” Something similar has unfolded in recent talks between Iran and the United States.
The proposals put forward by the Americans were unacceptable to the other side. Had they been accepted, they would have undermined the very raison d’être of Iran itself. The country underwent a profound transformation after the Iranian Revolution, which reshaped its socio-political landscape.
Among its major commitments, maintaining an independent nuclear programme has been considered pivotal to national development. Iran invested heavily to realize this vision and carve out an autonomous identity among the constellation of nations. In doing so, it faced sustained resistance and pressure from multiple quarters. If, at the negotiating table, this very programme is placed under threat, would any sovereign state accept such a proposition?
Negotiations are meaningful only when they take into account each other’s concerns and rights. They must follow a trajectory grounded in mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity—principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter. When differences arise, a middle path must be explored so that neither party feels coerced or humiliated. In this case, however, one side appears to have pursued a maximalist position. That is not how diplomacy works.
Power does not imply that the weaker side must submit to the whims of the stronger. The art of diplomacy lies in crafting solutions, not enforcing submission. When one party demands concessions that strike at the core interests of the other, negotiations cease to exist in any meaningful sense. They become a covert battleground where the voice of the weaker side is muzzled—caged within an architecture of silence.
What remains deeply troubling is the selective trust embedded in the global nuclear order. Certain powers are deemed responsible enough to possess nuclear weapons, while others are penalized for even aspiring to them. This is not a defense of nuclear proliferation—which remains a grave threat to global stability—but a critique of its unequal governance. The regime built around the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons reflects this asymmetry.
Here, the structural imbalance becomes evident. Powerful nations derive leverage in negotiations from their technological and military superiority, effectively setting the terms of engagement. This reflects the enduring logic of realism, where power—not principle—shapes outcomes. The imbalance is further institutionalized through mechanisms like veto power in the United Nations Security Council, where global decisions are filtered through the interests of a few. As a result, dialogues fail not due to a lack of communication, but due to a lack of equality.
The failure of such negotiations does not remain confined to diplomatic corridors—it spills into global instability. When no light appears at the end of the tunnel, escalation replaces engagement. In this context, the response of Donald Trump reflects this shift. Rather than restraint, attempts to control the Strait of Hormuz signal a paradox: instead of weakening Iran, such moves risk crippling global supply chains, hurting U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia and the UAE as much as—if not more than—Iran itself.
This inconsistency reflects not strategy but impulsiveness. Iran, on the other hand, appears resilient and strategically patient. It does not need outright victory; it only needs to endure. The collapse of negotiations can also be attributed to external interference, particularly from actors whose strategic interests may not align with diplomatic resolution.
For now, any claim of victory appears illusory. What was expected to deliver swift results has instead stretched into uncertainty, with no clear solution in sight. This is not a conflict driven solely by rational objectives but by ego, miscalculation, and political survival—a dangerous combination that threatens global stability.
At a deeper level, this reflects what Albert Camus described as the absurdity of human action: leaders pursue total victory, yet every step makes that victory less attainable. The situation around Hormuz stands as a stark example—measures intended to weaken Iran instead risk destabilizing the global economy.
Conclusion
An environment must be created where all voices are heard. To achieve this, emerging voices from the Global South must be strengthened and consolidated. In the present hierarchy, geopolitics remains driven by power politics—guided more by interests than by values.
The failure of negotiations here is not merely a diplomatic setback; it reflects a deeper structural imbalance where power asymmetry makes resolution elusive. When equality is absent, negotiation becomes performance.
Alternative frameworks must therefore emerge. The Global South, which bears the brunt of this unequal order, must assert itself in reshaping the global system—toward one that respects sovereignty, ensures fairness, and upholds a moral vision of politics where human beings are treated as ends, not as means.
