The “endless wait”: characterized by bombastic statements and denials, sudden moves, and unexpected bombings that obstruct a convoluted negotiation hanging by a very thin thread that could snap at any moment, plunging the Middle East back into a violent war, this epithet could be used to describe the subtle psychological game that has been dragging on for months now between Donald Trump’s Zionist administration and the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and which now seems to be nearing a conclusion with a possible fourteen-point truce.

Since the beginning of yet another aggression against the non-aligned Islamic Republic—a declared enemy of the United States and Israel since as far back as 1979, following the dethronement of the Shah Pahlavi—the Middle —yet another layer of an overheated international system where the diplomatic balance has shattered, gradually giving way to an “armed confrontation” between the “Anglo-American-Zionist hegemonic bloc” and the nascent “multipolar world” led by China and Russia—has undergone profound geopolitical and economic upheavals destined to persist for decades to come.

The backdrop against which events visible to the general public unfold—from the “infanticide” at the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab (in the southern province of Hormozgan)—struck and destroyed by a Tomahawk missile—through the missile exchanges between Iran and U.S. proxies in the region, all the way to the delusional press conferences of Donald Trump and Marco Rubio, is the great crisis of the broad cycle of the global order, characterized in its final years by predatory and speculative finance based on infinite growth and its total detachment from the real, productive market economy—upon which only the negative and toxic effects of its gambles and failures reverberate, as in the 2009 subprime mortgage crisis, paid for by taxpayers with millions of layoffs and foreclosures.

According to U.S. investor Ray Dalio, founder of the world’s largest hedge fund, Bridgewater Associates, in 1975, the United States has passed a point of no return on debt, with federal spending (approximately $7 trillion) far exceeding revenue, creating an unsustainable spiral. The greatest risk is not technical default, but rather the devaluation of the dollar and a “financial repression” in the style of the 1930s—statements that, accompanied by growing de-dollarization, have the flavor of a “death sentence,” we might say, the end of the “Dollar Empire.”

The “World-Island”, to use an expression coined by the Italian geopolitician Carlo Terracciano, has always based its policy of global expansion on two pillars or meta-axioms: its military power, manifested in naval power and “seigniorage”, and the dollar as the currency of international trade, complementing these two instruments with control over the Bretton Woods financial institutions—from the World Bank to the International Monetary Fund—used as needed as weapons of blackmail as well as predatory tools against debtor nations.

The emergence of multilateral international institutions that have broken free from the “Washington Consensus,” such as the BRICS or the SCO, determined to build—in parallel with political coordination forums—an alternative financial framework to the dollar monopoly and the Anglo-Eurocentrism of digital payment circuits (for example, the Russian MIR system or the Chinese CIPS cross-border interbank payment system), Eurasian initiatives to create new logistics corridors free from Anglo-American dominance—most notably the North-South Corridor (Moscow-Tehran), which, like an artery, connects to the Silk Road conceived by Xi Jinping, now also the Polar Silk Road with the thawing of the Arctic—and the capacity for projection and penetration of new international actors (Russia, China, Turkey, Iran) in regions of the globe (Africa and/or Latin America) that for centuries have been viewed by the London-Paris-Washington axis as mere “colonies” to be plundered—combined with the crisis caused by the outsourcing and internationalization of Euro-American multinationals intent on increasingly exploiting “quasi-slave” wage labor in developing countries by virtue of extra profits and bonuses, have profoundly eroded the “oligopolistic position” of Anglo-Zionism and its vassals, who are on the brink of bankruptcy.

Once the financial unsustainability of the U.S. government’s debt and the loss of the City of London’s (controlled by Zionism) centrality as the epicenter of global trade are established, the return to extreme militarism and armed interventionism to control regions key to world trade (the Strait of Hormuz) or that produce indispensable commodities (Iran and Venezuela for oil, Venezuela-Ukraine rare earths, Ukraine wheat, Taiwan microprocessors) is a desperate attempt to maintain an anachronistic hegemony and the failure of the dream of the “New American Century,” idealized by the neocons of Robert Kagan’s PNAC.

And while the United States tries to hide its unstoppable socio-economic decline, its traditional partners in the “special relationship” are in an even worse position. In recent years, the London market has seen a growing number of delistings and relocations, to the point that—as reported by the Financial Times—the problem is no longer episodic but structural, linked to “low levels of trading” and a growing “cost and regulatory burden.” The point, analysts emphasize, is that each exit weighs more heavily than the last: every major departure reduces critical mass and makes the market less attractive to those who remain. It is a self-perpetuating mechanism. And, as several market participants note, in finance perception matters almost as much as fundamentals: when a market is perceived as less dynamic, it automatically becomes less competitive. And despite attempts to hide it all behind the magic formula of Brexit: Brexit is only part of the story. Guy Hands, founder of the major British private equity fund Terra Firma, quoted by the Financial Times, expressed a very clear position: “The decline of the City of London is inevitable and was entirely predictable.” The reasons are many, but they all converge on one key element: liquidity. Without a large pool of investors and high trading volumes, valuations remain lower than in other markets. And this pushes companies, especially the more international ones, to look elsewhere. And of course, following the seizure of Venezuelan and Russian gold, the operations of “banking piracy”—involving the use of politically motivated economic sanctions—have caused all countries seeking to pursue an independent foreign policy to flee toward neutral, growing financial hubs such as Singapore or Shanghai. Other factors are internal to the British system, such as the gradual shift of pension funds toward safer assets, which has reduced the weight of domestic investors in the stock market. If we add to these factors BlackRock’s speculative investments in rare earths in Donbass, or Monsanto’s investments and the involvement of more than 150 British companies in investments and reconstruction in Ukraine—regulated by the 100-Year Partnership program and supported by UK Export Finance (UKEF)—we understand that the City’s financial stability is at risk of collapsing.

If Her Majesty’s British government, with its military rearmament program aimed “incredibly”—given the state of the armed forces—at war against Russia, is desperately seeking to seize those portions of Ukraine purchased in advance of ongoing military operations, the triumvirate of “Neo-Cons” -AIPAC and Pay Pal Mafia (or transhumanist techno-fascism) that governs the Trump administration aims for permanent military operations with consequent occupations of key points (commercial checkpoints) and the forced extraction of resources to avoid or postpone the collapse of the Stars and Stripes plutocracy. The swift and surgical raid in Venezuela, with the express abduction of President Nicolás Maduro Moro and his wife, the subsequent reshuffling of the government now led by the docile and compliant Delcy Rodríguez, who has reopened the doors to Uncle Sam’s embassy, oil companies, and businessmen, and acts of intimidation against European vassals—ranging from the expansion of military bases and mining concessions in Greenland to the oppressive tariff policy against goods from European subjects, blessed by the genuflection of EU Commission President Von der Leyen in Scotland on the American tycoon’s private golf course—had deluded international chancelleries into believing in a “return to power politics” with the super-ministry of War led by super-commander Pete Hegseth, a fanatical Protestant fundamentalist. As soon as they were prodded behind the scenes by the Zionists to attempt an attack on a regional middle power like Iran, the bureaucrats at the Pentagon and within the White House had to face a bitter reality. The “American Superpower” is but a pale shadow of what it was thirty years ago, given that beyond the dollar, one of the other solid pillars of its hegemony has also tilted dramatically: its overwhelming military superiority.

Iran, a country denigrated and militarily underestimated, infiltrated by Mossad agents provocateurs, harassed by three decades of sanctions, and in the past weakened by a long and bloody decade-long war with neighboring Iraq under Saddam Hussein—who was on the CIA’s payroll at the time—has demonstrated a resilience and capacity for response that have astonished legions of international analysts. The citizens of this lost civilization-state, boasting a millennia-old history—initially divided by rampant inflation and an economic crisis that was gnawing at the middle class, compounded by a natural weariness among the younger generations toward a strict and fundamentalist interpretation of Islam— quickly rallied after the U.S.-Israeli aggression, embodying through its tenacious resistance the supreme idea of martyrdom central to the Shia religion. Pain as purification: martyrdom has a profoundly redemptive and spiritual dimension, in which death in defense of justice and faith purifies one of sins. The metaphysical and esoteric dimension of the conflict, to which both sides have appealed and in which Iran has assumed a role antithetical to the pedo-satanist “Epstein” coalition (Trump-Netanyahu), has been compounded by various factors that are patiently delivering a strategic victory to Tehran and indelibly altering the balance of power in this crossroads region between different continents. Iran has demonstrated enviable military technological capabilities; the massive use of low-cost, latest-generation Shahed 136 drones and hypersonic missiles such as Sejil and Fatah 1 has effectively closed the gap against an enemy that has unrestrainedly deployed its entire conventional arsenal, indiscriminately bombing civilian and military installations; the leadership of the Revolutionary Guards (despite the decapitation of their leadership) have struck deep into the territory of the Zionist Entity, piercing the “Iron Dome” and shattering the myth of Israeli invincibility once and for all; they have struck U.S. radar and military installations in neighboring Gulf countries; and with missiles and sea mines, they have forced American aircraft carriers to flee in a hurry from the theater of war.

Despite the assassination of Qasem Soleimani during the first Trump administration, the coup in Syria with the ousting of Bashar Al Assad in favor of the cutthroat Ahmed Husseín al-Charaa (ISIS jihadist alias Abu Mohamed al-Golani), the bombs in Hezbollah’s personnel carriers, and the elimination of Hassan Nasrallah, the axis of Shiite resistance has not been broken. The entry into the war of Hezbollah, the Iraqi Islamic Resistance, and the Houthis alongside the Islamic Republic has demonstrated the coordination capabilities and network of Iranian proxies, which, though weakened, remains effective and active.

To these aforementioned elements, one must add the diplomatic skill of Seyed Abbas Araghchi and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, who have been able to secure the support of key countries such as Russia, China, and the Arab League without ever bowing to pressure, while always leaving a window open for negotiation and never separating the Lebanese issue from Tehran. The Iranian Foreign Ministry’s actions have followed the path pioneered by Mohammad Javad Zarif and continued by Ebrahim Raisi and Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian, who have made Iran a linchpin of the new Eurasian and multipolar architecture.

As we await the possible signing of the agreement expected on Friday, Iran’s current position is certainly more advantageous than that of its counterparts. Iran has retained its nuclear capabilities intact, has preserved approximately 70% of its missile capabilities, has introduced—in coordination with Oman—a naval toll for crossing the Strait of Hormuz under its national sovereignty, has demonstrated the ability to mobilize friendly Shiite forces when necessary, there has been no regime change, and we might even see funds frozen by the U.S. for the country’s reconstruction released. In contrast, the situation in the United States and Israel has shifted from “the curtain falls” on Tehran—pompously posted by Trump on Truth Social—to “the circus tent closes in Washington and Tel Aviv.” The United States has, in fact, shown itself to be bogged down in the Persian Gulf, just as it was at the time—with the necessary and obvious differences—in Vietnam, unable to carry out that much-vaunted “regime change” by dusting off the Shah’s son from the CIA’s archives and promoting an outdated monarchy incapable of capitalizing on the sympathies of opponents to the ayatollahs. Furthermore, the failed move to close the strait has embarrassed the Pentagon, which has been unable to make any serious attempt to reopen it and has sought to involve European countries—which, beyond their superficial statements, have not embarked on an adventure that smacks of a suicide mission. The simultaneous closure of the other strait, Bab el Mandeb—controlled by Ansar Allah—along with the Strait of Hormuz, and the damage to crude oil refining sites in the Gulf states that are Washington’s vassals caused Brent prices to skyrocket, continuing to generate substantial revenue for both Iran and Russia, both of which benefited from the rise in the price per barrel. Added to U.S. military impotence is the definitive loss of credibility of the transatlantic power among its Middle Eastern allies, who were left alone and defenseless during the Iranian missile attacks—which were limited to striking strategic infrastructure: port terminals, petrochemical plants, military bases, and U.S. personnel stationed on the ground—while redirecting all anti-missile batteries and other defensive assets solely to protect Israel. For now, the rift is purely political and there is no economic decoupling, but the disappointment of many petro-monarchies toward Washington is evident, and the first realignments in the region are already taking shape. Riyadh has rejected signing the “Abraham Accords” aimed at legitimizing Israel in the Arab world, and following agreements with Moscow to purchase SS-300 and SS-400 systems, it is looking with interest—and “dangerously”—toward Beijing, which, by providing logistical and intelligence support to Tehran from the sidelines, is one of the great silent winners of the conflict, a conflict that also facilitated last year’s rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Let us recall that Pakistan, too, is in China’s orbit, and the bilateral Saudi-Pakistani military agreements—under the nuclear umbrella extending to defend Mecca—share a single thread leading to Xi Jinping’s court.

Israel, the “deus ex machina” of U.S. foreign policy, is the other major losing player in this conflict. The extreme messianism of Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition, with its project to rebuild the “Third Temple” and “Greater Israel”, is destined to fail in the medium to long term without direct and sustained military involvement from the U.S., France, and the United Kingdom at its side. Israel has been preparing for a large-scale war against Tehran for at least 30 years, and the goal of regime change—as well as that of permanently eliminating the Iranian nuclear program—has failed. Unit 8200 of the Israeli army, (SIGIT) has exhausted its entire arsenal—from cyberwarfare to propaganda to computer virus attacks—but has failed to thoroughly and deeply undermine the structure of the Islamic Republic, which, following the fall of Bashar Al Assad, is in fact the only major country that genuinely supports the Palestinian cause through the “Arc of Resistance,” in contrast to the collusion and complicity of the petro-monarchies.

Operation “Lion’s Roar” was a total failure, and now the clumsy attempts to obstruct its ally’s negotiation process with Iran are the desperate attempt of a fugitive from justice to avoid prison, at the cost of sacrificing the lives of most of the young soldiers sent to Lebanon and annexing Gaza and the West Bank. On the battlefield, the loss of a large number of soldiers for a small country, at a demographic disadvantage compared to the Palestinians, could mark the beginning of the end for Israel, as prophesied by Jacob Rothschild and Henry Kissinger eleven years ago. The occupation of large swaths of southern Lebanon—at a very high cost, given that Hezbollah’s drones are taking heavy tolls on Merkava tanks—and the gradual incorporation of the West Bank and Palestine, with the resulting increase in the Palestinian population under Tel Aviv’s control, could prove to be a fatal mistake. And if even Syrian “puppets” like Al Jolani or the Kurds refuse to actively side with the “Epstein” coalition, and even Erdogan’s Turkey—a NATO member—begins diplomatic skirmishes with Israel, confusion reigns supreme in the synagogue, I would say.

In conclusion, we are witnessing a unipolar world dominated by an agonizing Anglo-Zionist plutocracy, over which the rise of the multipolar system looms powerfully, and the upheaval in the Middle East is the consequence of this paradigm shift that is accelerating relentlessly. “The old world is dying. The new one is slow to appear. And in this twilight, monsters are born.” As Antonio Gramsci would say.

Attached are the 14 possible basic points for negotiations between Iran and the United States:

1. Cessation of the conflict

The first point of the draft would establish the immediate and permanent cessation of the war on all fronts, including Lebanon. Iran, the United States, and their respective allies involved in the conflict would commit to not initiating new hostilities, not threatening one another, and not using force against one another.

2. Respect for Iranian sovereignty

The second point would concern mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. Washington and Tehran would also commit to not interfering in each other’s internal affairs. For Iran, this would be a central political guarantee, especially after months of war and military pressure.

3. Negotiations within 60 days

The third point would open a 60-day negotiation period to reach a final agreement, with the possibility of extension in the event of mutual consent. The memorandum would thus function as a provisional agreement, intended to freeze the conflict and create the political space for a broader agreement.

4. Lifting of the naval blockade

The fourth point would stipulate that, immediately after the signing of the memorandum, the United States would begin lifting the naval blockade, restoring full navigation capacity within a maximum of 30 days. According to the draft, Washington would also commit to withdrawing its forces from the Persian Gulf region within 30 days of the final agreement’s conclusion.

5. Reopening of the Strait of Hormuz

The fifth point would concern Iran, which would be required to facilitate the resumption of commercial shipping transit from the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea and vice versa. The goal would be to return to pre-war levels within 30 days. The timeline would take into account the need to remove technical obstacles and mines.

6. $300 Billion Plan for Iran: The sixth point would provide for a program of reconstruction and economic development for Iran, funded by the United States and its regional partners with at least $300 billion. The mechanism of the plan would be defined in the final agreement.

7. Removal of Sanctions

The seventh point would be dedicated to the lifting of sanctions against Tehran. The draft would refer to all measures imposed on Iran, including United Nations Security Council resolutions, those of the IAEA Board of Governors, and unilateral U.S. sanctions, both primary and secondary. Their removal would take place according to a timeline to be agreed upon as part of the final agreement.

8. Iranian Commitment on Nuclear Issues

The eighth point would address the nuclear dossier. Iran would reaffirm its commitment never to produce nuclear weapons, in line with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran and the United States would then discuss the future of enrichment, stocks of enriched material, and other aspects related to the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program, including the needs declared by Tehran.

9. Status Quo During Talks

The ninth point would establish the maintenance of the status quo until the conclusion of the final agreement. Iran would keep the current state of its nuclear program unchanged, while the United States would commit to not imposing new sanctions and not strengthening its military presence in the region.

10. U.S. waivers on oil and petrochemicals

The tenth point would provide for immediate waivers from the U.S. Treasury Department to allow the export of Iranian crude oil, petrochemicals, and derivatives. The waivers would also include related services, such as banking transactions, insurance, and transportation, and would remain in effect until the sanctions are permanently lifted.

11. Unfreezing of frozen Iranian funds

The eleventh point would concern the unfreezing of Iranian funds and assets that have been frozen or subject to restrictions. According to Bloomberg’s account, the version it reviewed does not contain a specific figure. Reuters, however, cited $25 billion, while Mehr reported $24 billion to be released during the final 60-day negotiation period, with half of the amount to be made available to Iran before the start of the final talks. The funds would be fully usable for payments to final beneficiaries designated by the Central Bank of Iran.

12. Monitoring Mechanism

The twelfth point would provide for the creation of a monitoring mechanism to verify the implementation of the final agreement. This would be a tool designed to ensure compliance with the commitments made by the parties and reduce the risk of new disputes over the application of the agreement.

13. Conditions for the final negotiations

The thirteenth point would stipulate that, following the signing of the memorandum and the commencement of the implementation of the provisions regarding the naval blockade, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, oil waivers, and the release of funds, Iran and the United States would begin negotiations on the final agreement. According to Mehr, the final talks would not begin until half of the frozen Iranian funds have been released, oil sanctions have been suspended, and the naval blockade has been lifted.

14. Ratification by the UN Security Council

The fourteenth point would finally stipulate that the final agreement be confirmed by a binding resolution of the United Nations Security Council. This would constitute an important political and legal guarantee for Tehran, which aims to prevent a new unilateral breach of the agreement in the future.

One key issue remains, however: the scope of the negotiations. According to Mehr, issues related to Iran’s missile program and Tehran’s support for regional armed groups would be excluded from the talks. This is a politically sensitive point, likely to fuel criticism from anti-Iran hawks in the United States, who oppose overly broad concessions on sanctions, frozen funds, and non-aggression guarantees.