The ceasefire between the United States and Iran is being interpreted through sharply contested narratives. Tehran has described it as an “unconditional surrender” by Washington – a claim that, while rhetorically charged, draws attention to a deeper structural reality: the inability of a dominant power to translate coercive intent into political outcome. This was not simply a war that ended without victory. It was a demonstration of how hegemonic power, when detached from strategic realism, falters – first in diplomacy, then in war, and finally in its attempt to control the narrative of its own actions. Coercive Diplomacy and Its Structural Limits The origins of this conflict lie not on the battlefield, but at the negotiating table. Prior to escalation, […]
This article was sourced from Middle East Monitor.
Read Full Article on Middle East Monitor →