Diplomacy is a subtle and slow-moving art as old as human history. Just like chess... You play by thinking about your pieces, calculate your opponent's ten moves ahead, and digest both losing and winning as a state tradition.
But the American game against Iran around the Strait of Hormuz is more reminiscent of the glamorous but ruthless gambling tables of Las Vegas than of diplomacy. It seems that one of the parties at the table is Iran, the inheritor of thousands of years of state wisdom, and the other is the so-called new Rome, which appeared on the stage of history only yesterday and thinks it knows everything: America.
So, is a deal between Iran and America possible?
Of course it is possible. No conflict is eternal. But the current picture shows that this possibility is fading with each passing day. The main reason for this is that Washington has abandoned the diplomatic table and resorted to the cunning of a gambler.
Let's think for a moment: America is like a gambler with all its chips on the line against Iran. The policy of “maximum pressure”, the sanctions, the massing of ships in the region... All this is part of a bluff that says “now or never” rather than a strategy. But Iran, with its centuries-long tradition of statehood, from the Persian Empire to the Sassanids, from the Safavids to the Qajars, from the Pahlavi's to the Islamic Revolution, knows exactly how to stand up to these fussy players of the time.
For Iran, diplomacy is not a tool for instant wins at a poker table; it is a stone of patience that has lasted for generations. Tehran talks of an “economy of resistance” even as it is crushed by sanctions. It is the ancient player who knows how to close his hand at the table, ignoring the fiery glares of the gamblers.
What about America? Its position at this table is like a bluffer who has lost everything. Momentary bursts of anger, tweet diplomacy, saying “we are ready to negotiate” one day and signaling “regime change” the next... This indecision is nothing in front of thousands of years of state tradition. Unfortunately, the team sitting in the White House today has forgotten that diplomacy is a process.
This is exactly where the Hormuz dilemma comes to a head: On the one hand, a civilization that does not see time as a rival; on the other hand, a management approach that thinks about the next election and indexes every move to instant gratification.
Conclusion: A deal? Maybe, but only if America gets out of its seat at the “poker table” and sits down at the table of real diplomacy. To do so, it must first accept that it has lost, and then realize that it has much to learn from history. Until it stops flailing around like that bluffer who lost everything in Las Vegas and learns to be a respectful interlocutor in the face of thousands of years of tradition.
Because there is no gambling in Hormuz. Either the state mind wins or loses there.