（下边有中文翻译请继续看到底。 谢谢。）
The geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran continue to cast a long shadow over the broader Middle East and global diplomatic affairs. At the heart of this mistrust lies the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, during President Donald Trump’s first term (2016–2020). This decision not only disrupted a delicately crafted diplomatic agreement but also highlighted a growing rift between the U.S. and its traditional allies. As the world transitions into a multipolar order, it is imperative to reimagine the path forward—one rooted not in coercion but in cooperation and mutual respect.
美国和伊朗之间的地缘政治紧张局势继续给更广泛的中东和全球外交事务蒙上长长的阴影。这种不信任的核心在于美国在唐纳德·特朗普总统的第一个任期（2016-2020年）内单方面退出了《联合全面行动计划》（JCPOA），即俗称的伊朗核协议。这一决定破坏了一项精心制定的外交协议，凸显了美国与其传统盟友之间日益加深的裂痕。随着世界向多极秩序过渡，我们必须重新设想前进的道路——这条道路的基础不是强迫，而是合作和相互尊重。
The Broken Trust
The JCPOA, signed in 2015, was the result of years of painstaking negotiations between Iran and six major powers: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany. It represented a landmark achievement in nuclear diplomacy. Iran agreed to curtail its nuclear program and allow comprehensive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In return, it received relief from harsh economic sanctions.
All signatories, including the IAEA, acknowledged Iran’s full compliance with the terms of the agreement. Even those countries historically cautious about Iran’s intentions—like the UK and France—expressed satisfaction with the verification regime. Yet, in 2018, President Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the deal, citing information provided in a high-profile presentation by then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This decision—absent of multilateral consultation—sent shockwaves across diplomatic circles and eroded the trust painstakingly built over years.
For Iran, the withdrawal was a stark reminder that even international agreements can be rendered fragile by political change in Washington. For the international community, it was a lesson in the volatility of U.S. foreign policy and the limits of American unilateralism.
The Trump-Netanyahu Axis
It is evident that President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu shared a common agenda: to isolate Iran and reframe the regional security narrative through a lens that disproportionately portrayed Iran as an existential threat. While concerns about Iran’s regional policies and its missile program are valid and worthy of dialogue, dismantling a functioning nuclear agreement only exacerbated tension.
Iran, on its part, exercised significant strategic restraint in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal. However, over time, it gradually scaled back its compliance, a move that was both predictable and justifiable under the deal’s own dispute resolution mechanism. The blame for the deal’s breakdown lies not in Tehran but in Washington’s abrupt and unilateral departure from a multilateral agreement.
A Changing Strategic Landscape
Since 2018, the global strategic environment has shifted considerably. Iran has fortified its regional alliances and has emerged as a strategic partner to both Russia and China. These relationships are not just symbolic; they are rooted in deepening economic, military, and diplomatic cooperation. Iran has joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and is aligning itself with regional initiatives that challenge Western hegemony.
Russia-Iran Deal Shows New Global Architecture Is Being Created
At the same time, the United States finds itself increasingly isolated in global geopolitics. Relations with traditional allies in Europe have frayed, particularly over issues like trade, climate change, and unilateral actions in the Middle East. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC), once a forum where the U.S. could effortlessly push through resolutions, has become a more contested space. Today, even if the U.S. resorts to its veto power, it can no longer expect automatic support from European or Asian allies.
The erosion of American global supremacy is not an endpoint but a signal of a changing world—one that requires humility, adaptability, and strategic patience.
Why Coercion Won’t Work
Attempts to coerce Iran—whether through maximum pressure campaigns, economic sanctions, or military threats—have failed to produce desired outcomes. Iran has shown remarkable resilience, developed domestic capabilities and fostered regional partnerships to mitigate the impact of sanctions. It is a nation with a proud history, a well-educated population, and a strategic location that ensures its relevance on the global stage.
Moreover, Iran is no longer as diplomatically isolated as it was a decade ago. It has built trust with key regional and global players, particularly China and Russia, who are increasingly willing to challenge Western narratives. Any new pressure campaign from Washington will likely be met not with isolation but with counterbalancing from Tehran’s allies.
The Case for a Mediated Settlement
Given the depth of mistrust—especially towards any U.S. administration led by President Trump—it is unrealistic to expect Iran to re-enter negotiations directly with the United States without strong safeguards. The way forward lies in mediated diplomacy through neutral or friendly third-party states, ideally with the active involvement of Russia and China. These powers not only enjoy strategic partnerships with Iran but also possess enough global clout to enforce any agreement they guarantee.
Such a multilateral format would lend credibility to the negotiations and ensure that commitments made are not easily discarded with a change in political leadership. A neutral venue—such as Switzerland, Norway, or even Beijing—could host these talks under the supervision of international organizations like the IAEA and the United Nations.
The contours of a new agreement need not reinvent the wheel. The original JCPOA can serve as a foundational framework, with modifications to address new concerns, such as regional security dynamics and ballistic missile development. In return, Iran should be offered concrete, irreversible relief from sanctions and meaningful integration into the global economic system.
A Moment for Statesmanship
Ultimately, the world stands at a crossroads. Continuing down the path of confrontation will only deepen instability, increase human suffering, and diminish the prospects for peace in the Middle East. The alternative is a return to diplomacy—difficult, slow, and often frustrating, but the only path with the potential for lasting success.
President Trump, should he return to office, has an opportunity to demonstrate statesmanship rather than showmanship. He could help craft a legacy of reconciliation and strategic balance rather than continued discord. Similarly, Iran’s leadership can signal its commitment to peace and progress by engaging constructively with the international community under fair and dignified conditions.
Course of Action
The time for unilateralism is over. The challenges of today’s multipolar world demand multilateral solutions, grounded in mutual respect and legal commitments. A new agreement between Iran and the United States is possible—but only through sincere dialogue, mediated diplomacy, and credible guarantees.
If the United States wishes to reclaim its role as a responsible global actor, it must prioritize diplomacy over dominance. The future of peace in the Middle East—and perhaps the credibility of international diplomacy—depends on it.
2015年签署的《全面协议》是伊朗与美国、英国、法国、俄罗斯、中国和德国这六个大国多年艰苦谈判的结果。这是核外交方面的一个里程碑式的成就。伊朗同意削减其核项目，并允许国际原子能机构对其进行全面检查。作为回报，它从严厉的经济制裁中得到了解脱。
包括国际原子能机构在内的所有签署国都承认伊朗完全遵守了协议的条款。即使是那些历来对伊朗的意图持谨慎态度的国家，如英国和法国，也对核查机制表示满意。然而，在2018年，特朗普总统单方面宣布美国退出该协议，理由是当时的以色列总理本雅明·内塔尼亚胡在一次高调的演讲中提供的信息。这一没有经过多边磋商的决定，在外交界掀起了冲击波，侵蚀了多年来苦心建立起来的信任。
对伊朗来说，伊朗的退出是一个鲜明的提醒，即即使是国际协议也可能因华盛顿的政治变化而变得脆弱。对国际社会来说，这是美国外交政策反复无常和美国单边主义局限性的一个教训。
特朗普-内塔尼亚胡轴心
特朗普总统和内塔尼亚胡总理有一个共同的议程：孤立伊朗，通过一个不成比例地将伊朗描绘成一个生存威胁的镜头，重新构建地区安全叙事。虽然对伊朗地区政策及其导弹计划的担忧是合理的，值得进行对话，但废除一项正在发挥作用的核协议只会加剧紧张局势。
就伊朗而言，在美国撤军后立即采取了重大的战略克制。然而，随着时间的推移，它逐渐减少了合规，根据协议本身的争端解决机制，这一举动既是可以预见的，也是合理的。协议破裂的责任不在于德黑兰，而在于华盛顿突然单方面退出多边协议。
战略格局的变化
2018年以来，全球战略环境发生重大变化。伊朗加强了其地区联盟，并已成为俄罗斯和中国的战略伙伴。这些关系不仅仅是象征性的；它们植根于深化经济、军事和外交合作。伊朗加入了上海合作组织，并与挑战西方霸权的地区倡议保持一致。
俄伊协议显示新的全球架构正在形成
与此同时，美国发现自己在全球地缘政治中越来越孤立。美国与欧洲传统盟友的关系出现摩擦，尤其是在贸易、气候变化和中东单边行动等问题上。联合国安理会（UNSC）曾经是美国可以毫不费力地通过决议的论坛，但现在却变成了一个更有争议的空间。如今，即使美国动用否决权，也不能指望欧洲或亚洲盟友自动提供支持。
美国全球霸权的衰落不是终点，而是一个变化的世界的信号，这个世界需要谦卑、适应能力和战略耐心。
为什么强制不起作用
无论是通过最大限度的施压、经济制裁还是军事威胁，胁迫伊朗的努力都未能产生预期的结果。伊朗表现出了非凡的韧性，发展了国内能力，并促进了地区伙伴关系，以减轻制裁的影响。它是一个拥有令人自豪的历史、受过良好教育的人口和确保其在全球舞台上具有相关性的战略位置的国家。
此外，伊朗不再像十年前那样在外交上孤立。它与主要的地区和全球参与者建立了信任，尤其是中国和俄罗斯，这两个国家越来越愿意挑战西方的叙事。来自华盛顿的任何新的施压行动都可能不会遭到孤立，而是会遭到德黑兰盟友的制衡。
调解解决的案例
鉴于这种不信任的深度——尤其是对特朗普总统领导的任何一届美国政府的不信任——指望伊朗在没有强有力保障的情况下直接与美国谈判是不现实的。前进的道路在于通过中立或友好的第三方国家进行斡旋外交，最好有俄罗斯和中国的积极参与。这些大国与伊朗享有战略伙伴关系，并拥有足够的全球影响力来执行它们所保证的任何协议。
这种多边形式将增加谈判的可信度，并确保所作的承诺不会因政治领导层的变化而轻易被放弃。一个中立的地点——比如瑞士、挪威，甚至北京——可以在国际原子能机构和联合国等国际组织的监督下主办这些会谈。
新协议的轮廓不需要重新发明轮子。原协议可以作为一个基础框架，并根据地区安全动态、弹道导弹发展等新的关切进行修改。作为回报，伊朗应该得到具体的、不可逆转的制裁解除，并有意义地融入全球经济体系。
政治家的时刻
最终，世界站在了一个十字路口。在对抗的道路上继续走下去只会加深不稳定，增加人类苦难，并削弱中东和平的前景。另一种选择是回归外交——困难、缓慢，而且常常令人沮丧，但这是唯一有可能取得持久成功的途径。
如果特朗普总统重新上台，他将有机会展示自己的政治才能，而不是表演才能。他可以帮助打造和解与战略平衡的遗产，而不是继续不和。同样，伊朗领导人可以通过在公平和有尊严的条件下与国际社会进行建设性接触，表明其对和平与进步的承诺。
行动方针
单边主义的时代已经结束。当今多极世界的挑战需要以相互尊重和法律承诺为基础的多边解决方案。伊朗和美国之间达成新协议是可能的，但只有通过真诚的对话、斡旋的外交和可信的保证。
如果美国希望恢复其作为负责任的全球行动者的角色，它必须优先考虑外交而不是主导地位。
( 注意： 本文是用AI翻译的，或有误差。请以原版英文为准。谢谢。)
Reference Link:- https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-iran-relations-diplomacy-over-dominance/5883833