Raphael Kalyviotis on Trump’s Iran Truce Success and Opponents’ Undermining Efforts
Raphael Kalyviotis highlights that China’s push for de-escalation in Iran reflects strategic dominance, while true high-stakes negotiators, unlike many analysts, grasp the complex, ruthless nature of modern geopolitical power plays.
Regarding the latest developments during the intervention in Iran, Rafail Kalyviotis writes on his personal page:
The fact that China advised Iran to move towards de-escalation — according to Axios — is because Greek analysts said that China is winning this war, and because The Economist published that striking front page portraying Xi Jinping as the new Great Napoleon who did not stop his enemy when he was making a mistake.
Having worked for fifteen years in shipping negotiating multi-million-dollar deals under tight deadlines that could ruin an agreement and, at the same time, an opportunity for an investor or investors who had been waiting many years, I want to inform you that high-caliber negotiators, let alone entrepreneurs of Trump’s stature, never reached the top of the pyramid by chance.
They had nerves of steel, were shockingly unpredictable and cold-blooded, never cared about what Mr. Mitsos or their entire professional community said, and of course, they could maneuver at the right moment. Finally, they ALWAYS had the best information.
Many analysts, professors, military personnel, and journalists are out of the game because they don’t even know the new negotiation framework that has been introduced.
This is a completely different negotiation culture. There was an American bank that distributed T-shirts to its employees in the dealing room with a T-Rex chewing on a piece of meat.
The shirt said, “find something to kill and eat it.” Today, Iran suffered a very serious defeat. It had been channeling asymmetrically since the beginning of the war so that Trump would not apply the madman theory that he does not care even if all Iranians die.
Today it was proven not to be equally good at bluffing. Because bluffing in a raw poker game, not a tournament with set rules, is better done by the one with the most resources.
PS: Analyses have already begun about the decentralized mosaic character of the war and the dual power in Iran.
These are not analyses but propaganda meta-analyses aiming to present today’s U.S. victory as a failure.
