Comparing sanctions regimes: Iran and North Korea

The prevailing strategy toward the Middle East in 2026—characterized by "maximum pressure," maritime blockades, and paternalistic threats of "punishment"—represents a catastrophic regression in international statecraft. This "predatory diplomacy" is not only ethically bankrupt but strategically illiterate, particularly when contrasted with the long-standing, paralyzed "soft approach" toward North Korea.

1. The Paternalism of "Misbehaviour": A Diplomatic Dead End

The current rhetoric reduces the complex, millennia-old "political DNA" of Iran to a juvenile dynamic. Terming the actions of a regional power as "misbehaving" is a fundamental category error that sabotages any prospect of a lasting settlement.

• The Iran Context: By treating Tehran as a wayward child rather than a sovereign adversary, Washington ignores the reality that Iranian strategic culture is rooted in a "resistance economy" and a deep-seated suspicion of Western diktats.

• The North Korea Contrast: While Iran is threatened with renewed strikes for "bad behaviour" despite its 14-point peace proposal, North Korea has built a nuclear arsenal under decades of "Strategic Patience." The global order is effectively telling Tehran: “Negotiate and we will suffocate you; arm yourself to the teeth like Pyongyang and we will eventually grant you a summit.”

2. The Myth of the "Surgical Strike" and "Elimination"

The political demand to "eliminate" a nation’s missile capacity through military force is a dangerous fantasy.

• The Iran Context: Military infrastructure in Iran is hardened, dispersed, and embedded within civilian hubs. A "strike" is never just a strike; it is a declaration of total war that would inevitably trigger asymmetric retaliation across the Strait of Hormuz—the world’s most sensitive energy artery.

• The Failure of Force: History shows that technical knowledge cannot be bombed out of existence. Strikes on the Iranian "brain trust" only accelerate the resolve to achieve the ultimate deterrent, mirroring the North Korean path where every round of pressure resulted in a more advanced missile test.

3. Economic Suffocation: Humanitarian Crime as Strategy

The current "suffocating" blockade, which prevents even medical and basic cargo from reaching civilian ports, is a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of international law.

• The Iran Context: Claiming that a blockade is "doing very well" because soldiers cannot be paid ignores the millions of civilians whose food and energy security are being held hostage for a "quick-win" deal.

• The North Korea Contrast: For years, the international community provided food aid and "Sunshine Policy" engagement to Pyongyang to avoid humanitarian collapse. Applying a total blockade to Iran while having historically subsidized North Korea’s survival exposes a glaring lack of moral consistency.

4. The Geopolitical Chessboard vs. The Oil Market

Linking peace talks to the UAE leaving OPEC or driving down oil futures exposes the true, cynical motivation of the current escalation: Resource Coercion.

• The Critique: When the US Treasury frames a blockade as a success because it might lower gas prices for Western consumers, it erodes any claim of "defending humanity." It reveals the conflict as a mercantilist war, where Iranian sovereignty is being sacrificed to manipulate the global energy market.

5. The Dangerous Erasion of the UN

Perhaps the most severe failure is the total marginalization of the UN Secretariat and the UN Charter in favour of personalized, "family-business" diplomacy.

• The Strategic Risk: By conducting negotiations through personal envoys and son-in-laws rather than the UN’s institutional framework, the current administration is building a "house of cards." Without the UN's "Blue Book" of neutral mediation and the legitimacy of the Security Council, any deal made is temporary, non-binding, and destined to collapse the moment the political winds shift.

Conclusion: The "Catastrophic Miscalculation"

The world is witnessing a " might-is-right" approach that rewards nuclear proliferation (North Korea) and punishes diplomatic overtures (Iran’s 14-point plan). If the United Nations remains a spectator while the "Big Three" treat the high seas and sovereign nations as personal fiefdoms, we are not just witnessing the end of an Iranian peace process; we are witnessing the final expiration of the post-WWII rules-based order. The result will not be a "great deal," but a era of deliberate, daily insecurity.

Diplomacy today: the art of deception?

The Diplomacy of Deception: War and Cynicism in the Easter Season

Victor Angelo

We enter this Judeo-Christian Easter period with a world marked by instability, prolonged violence, and a disturbing normalisation of war. From Ukraine to the Middle East, and including Iran, conflicts are accumulating that expose not only the marginalisation of traditional diplomacy but also a growing cynicism in international relations. Instead of the pursuit of peace, we are witnessing the instrumentalisation of diplomacy as a Trojan horse for force and aggression, a systematic contempt for International Law, and the accelerated erosion of the multilateral order built after 1945.

Regardless, this is one of those times of year that demands we speak even louder, and with total courage, about the importance of peace and ethics in politics and life.

In the case of Lebanon, the answer is clear: the violence and the gravest humanitarian crisis the country faces have no end in sight. Benjamin Netanyahu's government is betting on war and the destruction of the forces it classifies as enemies. His government's actions also have a very negative impact on the international image and the future of Israel—something that, it seems to me, does not receive due attention. The Israeli people are held captive by a coalition of extremist fanatics who manipulate the country's public opinion and use racism, the illusion of an ethno-religious belief, and fear as instruments to consolidate power.

Netanyahu disregards international norms and United Nations resolutions. His political decisions and the resulting military campaigns will one day be judged in the international courts based in The Hague. Meanwhile, the European Union (EU) has a moral obligation to condemn the policies of Netanyahu's government and to maintain a diplomatic distance from that regime.

This should, in fact, be the EU’s diplomatic practice when dealing with regimes that do not respect International Law. This is called soft power: a coherent position in the face of global or regional challenges, based on principles established as International Law over decades. The EU's geopolitical strength must lie in an unambiguous diplomacy, free from indecision or opportunism. To be seen by the rest of the world as a Union that follows an international policy based on convenience—in the vein of double standards—might be considered by many as political realism. But that type of realism leads to the disregard for Human Rights and to the crises currently crushing the Middle East and other parts of the world. Geopolitical realism is a historical step backwards.

The warlords practise the diplomacy of deception. It is an error to classify this practice as the diplomacy of chaos and improvisation. The politicians behind the aggressions against Ukraine, Iran, the rest of the Middle East, and other regions, pretend to be ready to negotiate. However, they follow a deliberate strategy of disruption. They know what they are doing. Diplomacy masks bellicose intent. There may be a good measure of historical ignorance and miscalculation, but the primary explanation for their decisions lies in the return to the old idea of "gunboat diplomacy" as the engine of international relations.

The war of aggression against Iran, which has political and economic consequences reaching far beyond the collapse of the Middle East, showed that traditional diplomacy—based on treaties, protocols, and predictability—has ceased to matter to leaders like Donald Trump. It has been this way since 2014 and, on a large scale, since 2022 with Vladimir Putin.

The diplomatic initiatives that pretend to be underway hide a preference for the theory of shock and confrontation, and an imperial Diktat philosophy inspired by the 19th-century world and the reality experienced until the end of the Second World War. The ruse involves keeping adversaries and allies in a climate of constant pressure and uncertainty, acting on the basis of surprise. It is not about improvising, but rather about surprising in order to attempt to dominate.

Surprise causes institutional paralysis, namely at the level of multilateral systems and diplomatic alliances. In reality, in Trump's case, it endangers the continuity of the UN's political dimension and the credibility of NATO. Within these and other multilateral institutional frameworks, trust disappears—which is the foundation of effective diplomacy—and with the loss of trust, the future of these institutions enters a phase of absolute uncertainty. I believe it is naive not to see this danger.

What should the response of European States be? Subtly clear. It must be based, concretely, on firmness and diplomatic distancing while continuing to insist on the value of alliances, which must not compromise multilateral cooperation. European leaders must also stress that it is vital to bring an end, without further delay, to the armed aggressions currently underway. Moreover, Europe needs to understand that an unpredictable international reality based on subordination to a problematic ally favours the political centrality of other States—in this case, China.

China seeks to be seen as a bulwark of stability and the sturdiest pillar of multilateralism. The big question, besides it being an authoritarian power, is whether the Chinese economy can sustain this global leadership role that is falling into its lap.

In any case, Europe cannot afford to lose out in this competition for centrality. Any imbalance that favours a superpower, even one as apparently predictable as China, contains, in the long run, a great risk of conflict.

This Easter, the message I dare to address to European leaders is summarised as follows: it is fundamental to resurrect. 

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.

A revised version about diplomacy in the era of algorithms

 Human Diplomacy or Machine Algorithms?

By Victor Ângelo
07 February 2026

We stand at a historical juncture where peace is imperilled not by technology alone, but by a failure of moral responsibility. Contemporary conflict is often framed as the inevitable outcome of systems—algorithms, predictive models, structural pressures—yet in truth it is the product of deliberate human choices, made by identifiable agents, with foreseeable human costs.

In the confrontation between the United States and Iran, the most alarming absence is not military capacity, but responsible leadership. Decisions that risk catastrophe are taken without public justification, without truthful articulation of intent, and without regard for those who will suffer. When international institutions hesitate to speak plainly, neutrality is abandoned, and moral confusion deepens.

The danger today is not simply missile launches or aircraft carriers. It is the weaponisation of perception. Digital tools are now routinely employed to distort judgment, saturate discourse with noise, and erode shared truth. This is not the dominion of machines. It is power exercised through machines. Algorithms do not deceive; they are designed to deceive, and responsibility cannot be outsourced to the tools themselves.

We must also confront the intellectual legacy of classical realist geopolitics, exemplified by Henry Kissinger and John Mearsheimer. Their analyses, though superficially rigorous, converge in a troubling moral pattern: they reduce human beings to abstractions—territories, populations, strategic assets—while treating suffering as unavoidable. Cruelty becomes “strategically intelligible.” Such thinking cloaks moral abdication in prudential language, legitimising actions that would otherwise be indefensible. It encourages leaders to regard injustice as inevitable and to mistake fear, expediency, and resignation for wisdom. This is not realism; it is the suspension of moral attention. True leadership exercises power with strategic acumen and ethical discernment, recognising that decisions affect living, morally responsible human beings.

Viewed through Sun Tzu’s lens, our current predicament is a failure of perception and discernment. He teaches that the acme of strategy lies in winning without fighting, in understanding both adversary and self, and in recognising that appearances are deceptive. Delegating judgment to machines or treating human beings as data blinds us to intentions, vulnerabilities, and opportunities, and risks defeat before the first battle. Strategy divorced from moral and cognitive clarity is hollow, and victory achieved through ignorance is fleeting.

To treat calculation as a substitute for judgment is to embrace a dangerous fiction. When people are reconceived as “vectors of probability,” moral agency is displaced, and with it the possibility of justice. This is not realism; it is ethical abdication disguised as analytical rigor.

Peace has never been sustained by procedure alone. It depends on public virtues: truthfulness, courage, practical wisdom, and a just regard for human life. When these decay, diplomacy collapses into appeasement masquerading as restraint or escalation masquerading as necessity.

What is required is a Diplomacy of Resolve, not absence of negotiation, but presence of principled limits. It recognises that aggression carries unacceptable costs—not merely military, but moral, legal, and political. Red lines have meaning only when those who draw them intend to uphold them, and can justify them publicly.

Truthful description is essential. Naming repression is fidelity to reality, not provocation. Acknowledging fanaticism, whether theocratic or technocratic, is not the closure of dialogue, but its preservation from self-deception. Leadership today demands moral autonomy: resisting the cold logic of systems and judging actions by their human consequences. Algorithms optimised for efficiency or dominance cannot perceive suffering. Responsibility cannot be outsourced.

In an era of pervasive surveillance, defending inner freedom is a political imperative. Human dignity depends on preserving the capacity to respond to reality—to act, judge, and choose beyond what is predicted or coerced. Those who resist digital domination—journalists, dissidents, citizens defending privacy and truth—deserve support. Acts such as obfuscation are not mere technical tricks; they defend the interior space in which moral judgment is formed.

As Simone de Beauvoir reminded us, to will oneself free is also to will others free. Today, that freedom is threatened by the absolutism of theocracy and the reductionism of technocracy. Sovereignty must begin with the dignity of the citizen, defended not only against missiles and sanctions, but against the gradual erosion of moral agency by systems claiming neutrality while exercising control.

A diplomacy worthy of its name must be human-centred. It must resist the temptation to replace judgment with calculation, responsibility with procedure, and truth with spectacle. Peace will not be secured by better models alone, but by clearer vision, firmer virtue, and renewed attention to the lived reality of those affected by power.

In the end, the lessons of Sun Tzu, the imperatives of virtue, and the ethical demands of our digital age converge upon a single truth: strategy devoid of moral attention is self-defeating, power without conscience is hollow, and foresight without regard for human dignity is perilous. True leadership is measured not by the cleverness of algorithms or the precision of force, but by the courage to see clearly, to judge rightly, and to act in defence of the human spirit. In a world awash with data and dominated by machines of calculation, the most radical act remains profoundly simple: to place moral vision at the heart of every decision, and to preserve the freedom and dignity of the individuals for whom those decisions are made.

Victor Ângelo