Iran’s delicate ceasefire hangs in the balance, according to experts, as reports emerge of IRGC commanders pushing for retaliation against Israel’s ongoing strikes in Lebanon. University of Tehran Professor Mohammad Eslami cautioned that Iran’s negotiators are under immense strain to safeguard Lebanon’s interests within any potential agreement.
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Eslami emphasized that Iran’s stance is guided by strategic considerations. If the US fails to prevent Israel from targeting Lebanon during a ceasefire, Tehran will be left questioning the US’s ability to restrain Israel from attacking Iran once a deal is reached. This concern is driving Iran’s approach to the upcoming negotiations in Islamabad.
Eslami underscored Iran’s significant bargaining power, citing that it was the US that initially agreed to Iran’s proposals for a ceasefire. He noted that Iran possesses at least three months’ worth of war capacity, should negotiations falter. The Strait of Hormuz serves as a potent card in Iran’s hand, with energy and financial markets on the brink of collapse before the ceasefire was implemented. Eslami attributed the Trump administration’s decision to engage in talks to the impending economic crisis, which the ceasefire effectively averted.
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
