Today's Iran: and tomorrow?

 

The Rubicon is Crossed: From the "Farsa" of Geneva to the Fire of the Gulf

Victor Ângelo
International Security Advisor. Former UN Under-Secretary-General

 

When I wrote in these pages yesterday that the clock for an intervention in Iran was measured in "hours or days," I did so with the heavy heart of someone who has spent several years trying to prevent precisely this kind of diplomatic bankruptcy. Today, as the first reports of explosions in Isfahan and near the Strait of Hormuz confirm that the "Sentinel’s Wrath" (or whatever branding the White House chooses for this tragedy) is underway, the "Cantinflas" theatre has officially closed. The masks are off, and the stage is now set for a conflict of unpredictable proportions. 

The collapse of the Geneva talks—which I previously described as a "farsa"—was the final signal. Sending real estate investors to discuss nuclear enrichment with a millenary power was not an act of naivety; it was a deliberate provocation designed to fail. Their message was an ultimatum. 

By presenting the Iranians with an ultimatum disguised as a "deal," Washington ensured that the path to war was paved with a veneer of "having tried diplomacy." As I warned, it was a crass error to underestimate the pride of Tehran, but perhaps the greater error was believing that this administration ever intended for those talks to succeed. 

The immediate implications are now twofold. First, we face the inevitable economic blowback. The Strait of Hormuz is not just a geographical feature; it is the jugular vein of the global energy market. Any Iranian retaliation there—which their doctrine of "asymmetric response" practically guarantees and it is now closed—will send oil prices into a spiral that will make the inflationary crises of 2025 look like a minor market correction. The "triunfalismo" of the White House may soon be dampened by the reality of ten-dollar-a-gallon petrol. 

Second, we are witnessing the final decapitation of the Rules-Based Order. By bypassing the UN Security Council and ignoring the "patient persistence" that Gorbachev, Reagan and Kofi Annan once championed, the superpowers have effectively declared that International Law is a relic of a dead century. We have entered the era of "Transactional War," where the strongest decides the "deal," and the weakest pays the price in blood and sovereignty. 

The regime in Tehran is now at its most dangerous. While it is true that many Iranians yearn for an end to the theocratic dictatorship, history teaches us that foreign bombs rarely foster internal revolution; they more often unify a nation under the flag of "divine protection." 

We are no longer debating whether a "deal" is possible. We are now in a race to see if the world can contain a fire that was started by people who believe the globe can be managed like a luxury hotel chain. Churchill believed in the power of summits; today, we are left only with the power of the bunker.

On Iran and the new way of practising diplomact

 The Erosion of Diplomatic Architecture: Why Transactionalism Fails the Iran Test

By Victor Ângelo

The proliferation of unconventional actors in international security has reached a critical inflection point. While market volatility often reacts to the immediate rhetoric of world leaders, a deeper, more corrosive trend is emerging: the replacement of institutional diplomacy with a model of "circular discourse." This week’s State of the Union address in Washington was less a strategic roadmap and more a closed-loop allocution, designed for domestic signaling rather than geopolitical resolution. For those accustomed to the structured stability of the rules-based order, the current American trajectory represents a significant departure from established norms of statesmanship.

Nowhere is this divergence more acute than in the deteriorating situation with Iran. Yesterday’s session in Geneva provided a stark visual representation of this mismatch. On one side, a twenty-strong Iranian delegation—staffed by career jurists and nuclear experts representing a regime that prioritises millenary pride and theological survival. On the other, a skeleton crew of two American interlocutors, including property investor Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff. This numerical and professional disparity suggests that Washington is no longer attempting to negotiate a complex multilateral treaty, but is instead treating nuclear non-proliferation as a transactional "closing."

This "real estate" approach to high-stakes diplomacy is a strange geopolitical decision. Unlike the pragmatic, persistent negotiations that defined the Gorbachev-era thaw, the current "triunfalismo" emanating from the White House ignores the specific gravity of the adversary. 

We are no longer in an era where words serve as a bridge; they have become a tool for division and ego-projection. With Benjamin Netanyahu signaling that the window for deterrence is narrowing, the risk of armed intervention has shifted from a theoretical contingency to a matter of hours or days.

Commenting on the State of the Union and the crisis in the Middle East (Iran)

 

Opinion Diário de Notícias 

From the State of the Union to Iran: Between Rhetoric and Real Risk

Victor Ângelo

International Security Advisor. Former UN Under-Secretary-General

Published on: 27 Feb 2026

---

We live in a society where "doctors" in the most extravagant branches of "Political Science" are proliferating. Many of them provide commentary on television opinion programmes in a manner that is as irrational as it is effective at capturing the largest possible number of viewers. This leads me to wonder whether any of them has ever studied the political thought of Cantinflas, who won a Golden Globe in the field of comedy—a close relative discipline to party politics. Although he passed away in 1993, it seemed appropriate to revisit his interventions in the art of politics and imagine how he would have reacted to the "rigmarole" speech Donald Trump delivered this week on the State of the Union.

Cantinflas was a shrewd man and, as a neighbour to the US by virtue of being Mexican, he would certainly have paid mockingly close attention to the American president’s harangue. I have no doubt he would have been delighted. Trump proved, once again, to be one of his own: an extraordinary orator in a style the Mexican character appreciated—the circular discourse. That is to say, an endless allocution that repeatedly returns to the same themes, as if the speaker were trapped in an arena with no exit.

Trump, in his 2026 State of the Union, dwelt repeatedly on immigration, the success of his administration (particularly in the economy), the incompetence of the Democrats, patriotism, the eight peace deals achieved, and negotiations with Iran. The intentions of the speech were clear: to display brilliance, project power, and sow division. Cantinflas used to say that these are a politician’s primary weapons, to which I would add intrigue. The comedian would have given Trump’s lecture top marks.

He would, however, be concerned regarding Iran. Although Trump speaks of negotiations and claims to prefer a deal—yesterday, a new and strange session of talks took place in Geneva, featuring two American interlocutors and two dozen representatives from Tehran, a contrast that reveals the disparity in expectations—the reality is that we are very close to an armed intervention. I do not know if it is a matter of hours or days, but the signs do not seem to deceive. Benjamin Netanyahu could enlighten us, as he is surely on the inside of the matter.

I have already written in the 6 February edition of the DN that a confrontation between the US and Iran would be "profoundly dangerous and complex." For the region and for various other parts of the globe.

The White House, however, prizes triumphalism over diplomacy. In this regard, it mirrors the dominant position in the Kremlin: the superpowers have ceased to believe in talks. Now, it is about crushing one’s adversaries.

It was not like this during the Cold War, especially in the final decade that ended with Mikhail Gorbachev’s mandate. My generation at the United Nations and in international diplomacy will remember that Gorbachev advocated, when speaking with Washington or in New York, the idea of persistent negotiations and openly criticised any decisions he deemed thoughtless, unbalanced, or dangerous to global stability.

It was through working with people like that, on both sides of the wall, that I learned that to win in the ceaseless quest for respect for International Law, one must be persistent and patient. This message should be reminded to those in charge in Washington regarding Iran. Similarly, it would be relevant to underscore to both the White House and the Kremlin another lesson from the times when agreements reached at the UN and other multilateral forums were respected: it is generally a crass error to underestimate one’s opponent.

At the UN General Assembly in September 2025, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian guaranteed that his country does not intend to build a nuclear bomb. Words are worth what they are worth and, in politics, they often fail to withstand a sudden gust of wind. For most leaders, good political practice means being skilled in the art of lying through one's teeth. Pezeshkian’s promises certainly do not withstand the vision of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who views the US and Israel as his country’s mortal enemies and the production of missiles—and likely nuclear weapons—as the only salvation for his regime. But the truth is that the regime suffers from a much greater threat: the majority of Iranians want to end the theocratic dictatorship of the ayatollahs, a power that is terribly repressive, antiquated, and unacceptable by the standards of Human Rights.

In a world of courageous people, the United Nations should be trying to promote, tirelessly, an encounter between Donald Trump and Ali Khamenei. A direct dialogue, a face-to-face between the two. It would be difficult, but not impossible. This was one of the lessons we learned from Winston Churchill and many other high-calibre statesmen. Churchill believed in the efficacy of summit meetings. He would be flabbergasted to learn that Trump had sent the poor soul Witkoff and the property investor Kushner to Geneva to discuss the solution to a confrontation that could turn the Middle East and other parts of the world upside down. They are not up to the task. Especially when, on the other side, stands a nation with millenary pride. And one that feels inspired and protected by a divine force. That kind of illusion holds great power.

Beyond the Algorithms: the Human Dimension

An Open Letter to my Readers: Human Diplomacy or Machine Algorithms?

07 February 2026

We find ourselves at a historical juncture where the traditional architecture of peace is not merely fractured—it is being rendered obsolete by a new and more insidious form of absolutism.

My recent analysis of the precipice upon which the United States and Iran now stand reveals a void where leadership ought to be. From the "lack of vigour" in the United Nations’ current leadership to the self-serving populism of regional autocrats, the "adults in the room" have effectively vacated the premises.

However, the peril we face extends beyond the formidable steel of the USS Abraham Lincoln or the multiple ballistic defiance of Tehran. We are witnessing the birth of a conflict defined by "the weaponisation of perception". We have entered the age of Digital Absolutism: a system where power no longer relies solely on the crude decree of a monarch, but on the "Black Box" of algorithmic certainty. It is a regime where those who control the data harvest the experience of the many to engineer the behaviour of all—transforming the citizen from an agent of history into a mere "vector of probability" to be predicted, nudged, or silenced.

In this "Century of Fear," as Albert Camus might have termed it, the battlefield intelligence has migrated to the digital architecture of our minds. Warfare is now waged through "false algorithms"—systems designed to saturate the decision-making process with noise, GPS spoofing that distorts the sovereignty of borders, and the mass production of misleading digital information that erodes the very possibility of a shared truth.

When I speak of the Iranian regime residing in the "Dark Ages," I refer to a fanaticism that has successfully harnessed 21st-century digital tools to enforce 16th-century repressions. Conversely, when I critique the Western response, I am inviting you to consider the "decline of courage" diagnosed by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. By outsourcing our diplomacy to data-driven models and "humanitarian causes" devoid of political stature, we have allowed the human spirit to be categorised as a mere variable in a zero-sum game.

To counteract this paralysis, we must urgently pivot toward a "Diplomacy of Resolve." This is not the absence of war, but the active presence of a principled boundary. It rejects the passive "humanitarian-only" stance, moving instead toward a posture where negotiation is backed by a clear-eyed readiness to defend universal values. Unlike the "Diplomacy of Accommodation," which often descends into the appeasement of autocrats, a "diplomacy of resolve" operates on the understanding that peace is only sustainable when the cost of aggression is made unacceptably high—not just militarily, but morally and economically.

It is a commitment to "Truth-Telling" in an era of digital deception. It means calling a "Dark Age" regime by its name while simultaneously keeping the door to the negotiating table open. It is the courage to ensure that when we speak of "red lines," they are drawn in the ink of international law and defended with the collective will of nations that refuse to be bullied by either ballistic missiles or algorithmic manipulation and fake news.

The leadership required in the digital era is one that possesses the technical literacy to decode the "Permanent Lie" of digital propaganda, yet maintains the moral autonomy to override the cold, escalatory logic of the machine. We need leaders who understand that in an age of total surveillance, the most radical political act is the protection of Human Unpredictability. By this, I mean the preservation of the individual's capacity to act outside of a predetermined data set—the "divine spark" of spontaneity and moral choice that no algorithm can anticipate.

Algorithms optimized for escalation, for war and victory, see the closing of a trade artery as a logical necessity; they do not feel the "incalculable number of victims" of repression. If we are to escape this trap, we must move beyond the "shadow war" of digital deception. We require a diplomacy that is human-centric. 

To be clear, we must support the digital dissidents who use Obfuscation as a shield. Far from being a mere technical trick, Obfuscation is the deliberate injection of noise and "useful misinformation" into the surveillance engine; it is a vital act of digital guerrilla warfare that blinds the Demoniac Leviathan by making the individual's data unreadable and unpredictable, thereby reclaiming the right to a private, interior life.

As Simone de Beauvoir understood, "to will oneself free is also to will others free." Our freedom today depends on our ability to resist the Demons of both theocracy and technocracy. Sovereignty must begin with the dignity of the citizen, defended not just against Tomahawk missiles, but against the algorithmic erosion of the will and the soul. Let us demand a return to this diplomacy of resolve—one that prioritises the lived reality of individuals over the strategic abstractions of the codes defined by digital experts and extremists billionaires.

Respectfully,

Victor Ângelo