Conflicting reports are coming from Tehran regarding the Iranian leadership's response to US proposals for talks, which may take place in Pakistan. Whether these talks will occur remains unclear. However, both sides have exchanged positions on which, in their view, a war between the US and Iran could end.
Iran's demands are extremely tough: US capitulation, reparations, guarantees for Hezbollah, unrestricted nuclear and missile programs. In contrast, US proposals give Tehran potential for regime development in exchange for restricting—not eliminating—its military programs.
Trump's diplomacy is about deals with dictators in exchange for payment and political loyalty, as seen in Venezuela, where the US administration supports certain autocrats for concessions.
Yet rational logic does not always prevail in Iran, where decisions are shaped by religious factors and fanaticism, and there is little transparency on who actually makes decisions about ending war.
Future escalation hinges on military strategies. Striking infrastructure and turning major cities into uninhabitable zones is the warfare logic of the 21st century, used by both Russia and Iran.
Aside from the Middle Eastern storyline, security guarantees for Ukraine are topical. President Zelensky recently stated that the US could provide guarantees only if Ukraine gives up Donbas. This creates new political and military risks, given uncertain US guarantees and willingness to intervene if Russia attacks.
The Trump era raises questions about a third world war, instability, doubts about NATO's effectiveness, and the need for states to rely on their own strength rather than international guarantees.
Vitalii Portnikov also answered viewer questions: whether Trump is ready for a major operation, if more balanced politicians may return, the potential for a global financial collapse, and how technology changes war.
