Reading Israel and America’s Peace Talks with Iran: Is it a Weapon of War or Peaceful Negotiations? – Irfan Raja

The war in Iran has entered its third consecutive month; the ongoing peace talks swing with pauses, resumes, exchanges of threatening language, and subsequent escalations, raising questions over the seriousness of the ongoing peace process. How long do peace talks last? Will the peace process help defuse a looming full-scale war? Following the failed peace talks between America and Iran in Islamabad and Oman. This state of affairs strengthens the fear of further escalation leading to an all-out war and deepens the global energy crisis. Now, all eyes are focused on the next round of peace talks, which will possibly happen in Moscow or China.

Israel continues to target key Iranian figures involved in peace talks, including the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and former parliament speaker Ali Larijani. Correspondingly, the American negotiating teams, composed of non-political figures, question and doubt Washington’s peace efforts. Besides, the sections of the mainstream media are heavily engaged in reporting peace talks; they largely ignore the ongoing Israeli genocidal atrocities in Gaza and the constant attacks on Lebanon.   

Arguably, the Greater Israel Project and the Israeli defense and political elites openly warning of further attacks on Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and Türkiye signal a shift in the war tactics. This raises concerns about Washington and Tel Aviv’s diplomacy, which has curbed peace talks into a strategic pause before the military campaign. The point is whether Israel and America are using peace talks as a weapon of war?

A glimpse of American way of peace talks.

Given the history of major conflicts ranging from Latin America to Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, America has intervened and led numerous peace processes to resolve the conflicts.  Evidence shows that during the 1990s, the U.S. led NATO to resolve the Bosnian War. Furthermore, in 1999, the U.S. again mediated to halt ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.  

Several experts note that the U.S. continues its efforts to integrate Balkan states into NATO and the European Union, presumably (America’s strategy) to prevent “frozen conflicts” from escalating. True, though, the U.S. also assisted in talks between Serbia and Kosovo. This is evident in the “Western Balkan democracy and the Prosperity Act.” The other side of the story is bleak; The Guardian, a report revealed, citing the Kosovo sources, said that the U.S. and EU leadership have silently backed Serbia, which could possibly aid Russia to intervene in the Western Balkans.

Though the current state of NATO and Trump’s trade embargo on the EU and his plan to annex Greenland may change the picture of Europe in the future. Factually speaking, America has always safeguarded its own interests. For Example, Nikola Mikovic offers a revealing commentary, “From the Balkans to the South Caucasus: How Trump’s ‘Peace Deals’ serve U.S. and Israeli Interests.” Mikovic opinion aligns with leading critics that America unconditionally favors Israeli policies. 

The American strategy is visible in the United Nations Security Council; the U.S. has shielded Israel’s ongoing “Genocide in Gaza”, and it has a history of blocking “UN resolution against Israel.” Professor Michael Lynk asked: “What does the U.S. get out of shielding Israel from accountability at the U.N.?” What Lynk finds is shocking: the U.S. “diplomatic shield” safeguards Israel’s violations of international law and thus upholds Israel’s regional influence and prevents scrutiny of Israel’s inhumane actions in the occupied Palestinian territory.” Khaled Elgindy’s in-depth analysis published in Brookings provides insights into the American-led Israel-Palestine peace talks during the American presidents Clinton, Bush, and Trump. Elgindy concludes “how the peace process killed the two-state solution.”

Reading America-Iran peace talks. What happens next?

Considering the long history of America’s peace processes and resulting negotiations, one can see how America has emerged as an untrusted and unreliable partner with a double-edged sword that unconditionally arms Israeli misconduct. Arguably, America practices each peace process opportunity as a “diplomatic tool” to safeguard Israel and its interests in the Middle East and beyond.

For the past two decades, a long list of credible studies featuring the numerous peace processes led by America mainly focused on the Middle East diplomacy including a Diplo Foundation (2026) report that argues, America uses “Big Stick diplomacy” meaning “a strategy where quite words carry weight because of the threat of overwhelming force,” and here are the blueprints of this approach in case of peace talks with the Iranians over the “Strait of Hormuz.”

The current peace between America and Iran is a textbook illustration of U.S. foreign policy and diplomacy in the Middle East. Roy Casagranda unpacks the U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East which according to him is not about “peace.” True, America’s peace talks are skillfully designed to assist Israel’s long-term goal, “Greater Israel” Project.  

First, America applies a soft diplomacy strategy to create an image of soft power and to convince ordinary people at home and in the Middle East that it values peace. At the same time, “Trump threatens to wipe out Iran’s ‘whole civilization.” Imagine, with such “violent rhetoric,” could Donald Trump’s credibility as a negotiator be trusted?

On the other hand, Benjamin Netanyahu’s applause for assassinating top “Iranian leaders” directly involved in the peace process, including Iran’s national security chief,  Ali Larijani; the head of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards Corps, prominent scientists, politicians, and military figures. Besides, Israel has deliberately targeted Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran and several other Hamas leaders, including Mohammed Sinwar and Yahya Sinwar. Hizballah and Hamas that are both seen as legitimate struggles by Professor William Clare Roberts.   Still Israel is not willing to halt its assassinating tactics. Can peace be possible?

Traceably, Israel and America have applied the same old strategy of openly supporting mobs in Tehran and presenting them as peaceful protestors to facilitate a distasteful regime change operation inside sovereign Iran and continue assassinating negotiators. Of course, as “Israel is rapidly killing Iran’s top leaders,” experts like Jon Alterman warn that “the strategy could backfire.” Perhaps that is why Pakistani fighter jets were escorting the Iranian plane carrying the delegation during the “Islamabad peace talks.”

What could be expected in such a situation? The failure of “Iran-U.S. peace talks” tells nothing more than what a Al24news news anchor, Karim (Kareem Fess Zakari), guest discussed in a series of debates: whether these peace talks are a “strategic pause,” “ceasefire,” or a “tactical resupply.” True, as many writers overwhelmingly cited Aaron David Miller, who famously said, “We, the United States, may not be an honest broker, but we can be an effective broker.”

Evidently speaking, the U.S. negotiating team consists of real estate developers and investors like Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner while the foreign policy experts and noted diplomats have been sidelined. This approach strengthens the concept; the decline of diplomacy and the mounting influence of the military-industrial complex and Israeli lobby. In a recent Piers Morgan uncensored, Joe Kent, revealed the Iranian agreed to Trump peace deal but the Israeli lobby used the influence mechanism, doner, influential Israelis in pro-Israeli media and pressure campaigns to sabotage peace efforts and endorse pushed Trump for war on Iran.

Only time will tell how long the war on Iran continues and which country will be attacked next in a bid to facilitate Netanyahu’s “Greater Israel” project. At this moment, I do not hesitate to say that the peace talks are not “genuine negotiations” but rather a cover-up strategy to use them as a weapon of war.