Netanyahu gives in to Trump’s pressure and clears the way for the peace summit in Islamabad: what can we expect?

The practical implications of this approach are few: the regular Lebanese army has been fighting the militia for years without any success. Its means are inferior and Beirut’s political will can do little to remedy it.

In other words, We are facing negotiations empty of content in which both agree on the objective, without one of the parties being able to contribute much, beyond adding the dead. Apart, there will be no ceasefireNetanyahu has made that clear, and the only thing he has committed to, as the US vice president announced JD Vance, is to slightly relax the pace of bombing of the Lebanese capital.

In fact, these attacks have been the cause of huge criticism from European countries precisely because I consider that they were not directed so much at Hezbollah as at the Lebanese civilian population, indiscriminately.

Besides, they had become a major obstacle in negotiations between Iran and the United States. Tehran – and Pakistan, the architect of the agreement – consider that the ceasefire includes operations in Lebanon, while Israel insists that they will only respect the direct truce with the ayatollah regime and not with its guerrillas.

Although JD Vance himself wanted to play down the differences by describing them as “legitimate misunderstanding” the Iranian position, The truth is that Washington has been putting pressure on its Jewish partner for forty-eight hours. Special envoy Steve Witkoff spoke to Netanyahu by phone on Wednesday night to moderate his stance, after Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian considered it “nonsense” to even begin negotiations if they did not include Hezbollah. The American press indicates that Donald Trump was also able to contact the Israeli prime minister.

Very distant positions

It remains to be seen whether Israel’s gesture will be enough to continue with the peace summit planned for this Saturday in Islamabad. Both the aforementioned Pezeshkian such as the president of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, Mohamed Baker Kalibafhave shown their outrage over Israel’s alleged breaches of the ceasefire agreement. The curious thing is that Kalibaf is considered the Trump Administration’s trusted man within the Iranian regime.

The American delegation will be headed by Vice President JD Vance, accompanied by the ubiquitous negotiating pair, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. Witkoff and Kushner were also present in Geneva during the February talks that led to the surprise attack on Iran and the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Trump indicated at the time that the attack was caused, among other things, by the bad feelings that both envoys conveyed to him.

It remains to be seen how the positions of each side have changed in this new meeting. For a startyou don’t even know what they are going to debate aboutr. There is an alleged ten-point agreement that the two sides cite, but without agreeing on its content. Iran assures that the United States has to commit to stopping the attacks, give guarantees that they will not be repeated, compensate for the damage caused and allow uranium to continue to be enriched for civilian purposes. In exchange, he would be willing to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to free trade…as long as the Revolutionary Guard’s control over it is recognized, something unusual and absolutely illegal.

JD Vance’s big mess

If these are really the intentions of the Iranian delegation, headed by the aforementioned Kalibaf and by the minister of foreign affairs, Abbas Araghchithe negotiations will not last long. Presumably other terms are being discussed privately. After all, the vice president Vance spent much of Tuesday on the phone with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, to polish the Iranian maximalist proposal. They would promise something so that Trump would extend the ultimatum for the fifth time.

Vance’s own presence is already indicative. The number two in the Administration has based his political career on the defense of isolationism and the fight for the middle and lower classes of rural America against excessive spending on endless wars in the Middle East. Now, he finds himself in the middle of a seemingly endless war in the Middle East and a good part of his income in the face of a possible nomination as a candidate in 2028 depends on him being able to put an end to it.

It won’t be easy. The positions, as we say, are too far apart and it is not known what each one is willing to give up. Both consider themselves winners of the conflict: the United States for the obvious damage it has caused to Iranian military infrastructure and Iran for the fact that the damage has been limited, still maintaining reserves of missiles and drones, together with the realization that the United States seems to be inclined towards almost any kind of agreement before facing a ground intervention.

Now, Without ground intervention and without an opposition to arm to do the dirty work, regime change is impossible…and, without regime change, in turn, ties with Russia and China will be maintained and rearmament will come as soon as Israel and the US cease their attacks. The nuclear threat has not dissipated either: although Trump stated last June that the Iranian program had been “annihilated”, the truth is that it is now taken for granted that there are abundant reserves of enriched uranium in underground laboratories.

The strategic importance of Hormuz

The total opening of Hormuz cannot even be taken for grantedwhich, forty-eight hours after the announcement of the ceasefire, still has not occurred. The Iranians now have an unexpected advantage and they do not want to get rid of it. Yes, they can use it to get something in return, such as the continuity of the nuclear program, which would lead us to an agreement similar to the one signed by Barack Obama in 2015 to the indignation of Donald Trump, who disassociated the United States from it in 2018.

In short, it is difficult to know what they are negotiating and what the limits of said negotiation are, so it does not seem too risky to think that the only intention is to gain time. After almost six weeks of war, the United States has not completed any of its objectives, but it may as well say that it has and abandon the conflict for good. It remains to be seen what Israel, Arab countries and international markets would think if that were to happen.