Analysts describe the current state of the ceasefire as precarious, with reports emerging that high-ranking IRGC officials are urging retaliation against Israel for its ongoing strikes in Lebanon. According to Professor Mohammad Eslami of the University of Tehran, Iran’s negotiators are facing immense pressure to ensure Lebanon’s protection as part of any agreement.
Eslami emphasized that Iran’s decision-making process is driven by strategic considerations. He posited that if the US fails to prevent Israel from attacking Lebanon during a ceasefire, it raises questions about the US’s ability to restrain Israel from targeting Iran once a deal is reached. This concern is fundamentally shaping Iran’s approach to the upcoming negotiations in Islamabad.
Eslami also highlighted Iran’s significant bargaining power, citing the fact that it was the US that initially agreed to Iran’s proposals for a ceasefire. He stated that Iran possesses at least three months’ worth of military capacity, which it can draw upon if negotiations break down. Notably, Eslami pointed to the Strait of Hormuz as a crucial factor in Iran’s leverage, noting that the energy and financial markets were on the brink of collapse before the ceasefire was established. He attributed the Trump administration’s willingness to engage in negotiations to the threat of a catastrophic economic collapse.
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
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team