A leading Iran foreign policy expert has concluded that US President Trump was left with no viable alternatives but to accept a ceasefire agreement with Iran, given the dire consequences of a broader conflict. Trita Parsi, a Quincy Institute analyst, made this assessment in an interview with Al Jazeera, cautioning that a US-Israeli war with Iran would have catastrophic repercussions for Trump’s presidency.
Parsi pointed out that any attempt to target Iran’s energy resources and power plants would likely prompt retaliatory strikes against Gulf Cooperation Council states, exacerbating the current energy crisis. He suggested that Trump’s earlier threats were merely a tactical move to create the illusion that the agreement was reached on his terms, rather than a genuine reflection of his negotiating position.
In reality, Parsi noted, the ceasefire deal appears to be based on the 10-point plan proposed by Iran, which is a more moderate and reasonable framework for negotiations.
Skardu.pk is one of the leading authentic news and information platform focusing on adventure tourism, regional and world affairs.
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
