In light of President Trump's visit to China and the exchanges that took place during his talks with President Xi Jinping, followed by the Russia-China summit, during which some of the remarks made by President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese host appeared almost as a continuation of the Trump-Xi discussions, Trump may have concluded that the time had come to move from confrontation toward a more realistic understanding of international affairs. This was reflected, to some extent, in the language of the statement issued after their talks.
The US president may have concluded that continuing tensions with Iran could prompt Tehran to seek active Russian and Chinese backing in a confrontation that neither country desires. Russia and China are bound by strategic agreements and treaties whose depth and effectiveness surpass anything seen during the era of Leonid Brezhnev in the Kremlin and Mao Zedong in China.
Had the leaders involved in this conflict, namely the United States, China, Russia, Iran, and particularly Netanyahu's Israel, sheltered by an unprecedented US position, asked polling organizations in their respective countries to survey a broad cross-section of citizens, men and women alike, especially those of middle age, with a single question: "Do you support ending a conflict that has produced nothing but killing, destruction, the beginnings of economic collapse, and fear for the future?" the answer would likely approach one hundred percent.
The response would be: "We want to live. We want governments to focus on development. We do not want the roar of missiles and drones to return. We want productive societies to move toward prosperity. We want every destroyed home to be rebuilt through international and regional cooperation, and every person targeted by an American, Iranian, or Netanyahu missile, or by heavily armed Iranian proxies, to be compensated."
It may be argued that the flexibility shown by President Trump was influenced by the wishes of Gulf leaders. It may also be argued that, with midterm elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate approaching, Trump recognized that maintaining the current standoff with Iran, or attempting to resolve it through war, could produce an unpleasant electoral surprise. As a result, he may have decided to shift his position from the height of confrontation to the threshold of foresight.
Calming the impulse toward confrontation and self-aggrandizement in preparation for a decisive settlement could ease anxieties at home and reassure the "Arab-Gulf-American sphere" that what follows de-escalation will be stability for both people and states.
Concern over neighboring Cuba may also have played a role, together with considerations regarding what to do about Venezuela's president, whose fate remains unresolved. These factors may have led Trump to examine realities with open eyes and to contemplate the possibility of a gradual distancing by the other America, South America, from Greater America, the United States.
In light of these two possibilities, the electoral factor and the Cuban factor, Trump may have decided, once again in response to advice from the "Arab-Gulf-American sphere" and out of concern for the stability of its states, to reconsider what has happened in the Middle East. He may also have come to realize that aligning himself with Netanyahu's Israel, with all its burdens and actions, was an inhumane course of action. In doing so, he forfeited what might have secured him a lasting place in humanity's collective memory: advancing the establishment of a Palestinian state during his presidency.
What people in the United States hope for from decision-makers is foresight, foresight that brings reassurance. For Iran, such foresight may be even more beneficial, for the Iranian people, the Iranian state, and its workforce, whose energies would no longer be directed toward launching missiles.
This is the kind of foresight sought by the rest of the world as well, a world exhausted by the horrors of war and by the Strait of Hormuz crisis.
The hope is that the emerging signs of realistic understanding between the two parties to the conflict, the United States and Iran, will be translated into concrete measures under which the doves of peace may soar across the skies of a region that has already suffered enough, just as the two rival states, the countries of Europe, and indeed the entire world, have suffered enough as well.
The evidence is abundant.
