The best words to describe the moments that followed the signing of the framework agreement between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran may be those uttered by the great intellectual Antonio Gramsci: “With pessimism of the intellect, there remains optimism of the will.”
The will of both sides succeeded, albeit temporarily, in halting bloodshed and the waste of resources, even if the agreement signed on the eve of the start of the Switzerland negotiations was merely a framework vision for the beginning of a long journey, filled with complex technical details.
Perhaps this is the first step before the thousand-mile journey in relations between the United States- which, until now, has maintained its ideological view of Iran, and the evolving, still untested changes on the Iranian side, and whether Tehran is acting with sufficient credibility to reach a decisive moment capable of ending five decades of conflict.
One is prompted to ask: who is the protagonist of the contemporary American-Iranian story, of which yesterday may have been the latest and most important chapter?
The answer may seem somewhat surprising, because the true actor in the scene is President Donald Trump himself. Most likely, what enabled him to embark on this broad path, which he hopes will become a road to peace, is his politically non-ideological mindset, one closer to realism than to idealism.
For nearly five decades, Iran has been viewed by American presidents, and by the collective consciousness of the American nation, as an adversary that had to be confronted, defeated, or at the very least contained. This was the objective Barack Obama pursued in the 2015 agreement, yet he never dared approach the idea of normalizing relations or opening a new path toward peace with the Iranian state.
President Trump appears, with justification, to be the only US president since 1979 who has possessed the courage to bring about genuine change in American-Iranian relations, despite his recent military action.
The world, not only the Arabian Gulf or the Middle East, appears to be witnessing a genuine Gramscian exercise of will. Trump expressed this on his platform, Truth Social, a few days ago, in terms that extend beyond the initial signing and toward the sixty-day negotiations.
Trump wrote: “This Great Deal will bring Peace and Security to the whole Region. Many Presidents have tried to make peace with Iran, and all have failed before me.”
The American observer says that the occupant of the White House is exceptionally fond of superlatives. This may be broadly true and perhaps simply a matter of rhetorical style. Yet if he succeeds through the upcoming negotiations in reducing American-Iranian crises to zero and establishing an agreed framework for ending Iran’s disputes within its regional neighborhood, Trump would undoubtedly become the American Caesar whose name could deservedly be inscribed among the American Caesars discussed by the renowned British historian Nigel Hamilton in his celebrated work.
What could the success of the forthcoming framework agreement add to American-Iranian relations?
In short, it could transform Tehran from an ideological enemy of the United States into a potential partner on the strategic chessboard of an emerging world, one fundamentally different in form and substance from the world humanity witnessed during the closing decades of the twentieth century.
During the press conference held in the French city of Évian-les-Bains, on the sidelines of the G7 summit and alongside French President Emmanuel Macron, Trump appeared, as the renowned American writer Dale Carnegie might have put it, to be emphasizing the positive qualities of the other side and recalling the period before the Iranian Revolution. “Our relationship with Iran was very good,” Trump said, despite widespread fears that his confrontation with Iran might escalate from a limited military conflict into a global conflagration beyond the bounds of reason and acceptability.
About a week earlier, Trump told NBC News: “I find them rational and intelligent.” This raises an important question: at any point during the past five decades, was there an American president before Trump who possessed the courage to describe the Islamic Republic of Iran in such terms?
The answer is almost certainly no. Even Obama, despite all his efforts during his two terms in office, never crossed that threshold, namely, approaching an end to the existential dispute and then looking toward a cooperative and participatory future, free from American imperial condescension and Iranian hostility.
Realistically, however, the road remains filled with obstacles, particularly amid the voices of war advocates on both sides. The path that Trump has opened, rightly and deservedly, remains a realistic course that calls for the will of optimism rather than pessimism. Is Trump moving closer to a Nobel Peace Prize?
