Getting the Framework Right: Why Iran Is Seeking Power, Not Just Money
Escalation Trap This Week: Staying Ahead of the Risks that Matter
Last Monday, I argued that the greatest risks surrounding the new memorandum were uncertainty itself and Iran’s growing leverage from collapsing oil inventories.
Events quickly validated both. The talks stalled, Iran walked out after they resumed, talks briefly continued, and President Trump himself acknowledged that inventories had become central to the crisis.
Many assume that the negotiations are fundamentally about money and economic concessions. The Trump administration clearly thinks so.
However, if the current framework is wrong, then many of the expectations surrounding the negotiations may also be wrong.
This week goes deeper.
What if Iran is pursuing something larger than economic relief?
What if the negotiations themselves are helping accelerate Iran’s rise?
And if so, what does history tell us about how rising powers use negotiations after wars to lock in their gains?
Most importantly, if the prevailing framework is wrong, what does the correct framework imply about the risks facing the United States, Israel, and the global economy over the next thirty to sixty days?
Because getting the framework right is often the difference between understanding events—and being surprised by them.