Political Scientists Skeptically Assess US Operations in Iran: Ukraine Must Change Negotiation Format

Recent events surrounding Iran and the actions of the United States have sparked serious discussions among political scientists, who view this decision as a significant defeat for President Donald Trump's administration. Viktor Shlynchak, chairman of the Board of the Institute of World Policy, noted in a Facebook post that Trump, as expected, initially escalated the situation and then took a step back, opting to postpone the conflict for two to three weeks. He emphasized that even for such a situation, it was necessary to lift planes from British bases, only to end up in a deadlock. Shlynchak believes that while the White House may gain some economic benefits, the primary focus is on the political context.

The political scientist also pointed out that the world has witnessed a month of American weakness, as the United States found itself without support from allies, including Europe, Britain, Canada, and Australia. "For another two and a half years, we will have to deal with such American policy, and unfortunately, it cannot be changed," Shlynchak added. He believes that after freezing the conflict in Iran, Trump will return to domestic politics, attempting to sell Americans on the idea of a "great victory over all evil forces in the world." In his opinion, a positive aspect may be a decrease in oil prices, which would reduce funding for Russia in the war.

Shlynchak also called on Ukraine to rethink the negotiation format together with European partners, given the American side's focus on the upcoming Congressional elections. "It is evident that the current trilateral format will no longer work. Games in potential business with Putin are costing more points than they are giving," he noted, emphasizing that Europe may be forced to build its own security system without the United States.

Timothy Ash, a senior sovereign strategy specialist at RBC Bluebay Asset Management, also commented on the outcomes of the conflict, labeling them a defeat for Trump. "The good outcome is a crushing defeat for Trump, and Iran can claim that its survival has been a great victory," he wrote on social media platform X. Ash pointed to the importance of the elections in Hungary, scheduled for April 12, which could yield negative results for Trump.

Serhiy Fursa, a representative of the investment company Dragon Capital, shares this view, noting that Trump has been demanding Ukraine capitulate to Putin's demands for a year, and now, by demonstrating an example, has himself capitulated to Iran. Political scientist Vitaliy Bala also drew parallels between the situations in Iran and Ukraine, asserting that the United States has no real interest in achieving peace, but only pressures Ukraine to comply with Putin's conditions.

"Now it is clear to everyone that the Trump administration is not interested in real peace, but only pressures Ukraine for capitulation," Bala concluded, emphasizing that only an adequate response and the presence of trump cards can ensure real peace negotiations. In the case of Iran, the trump card was the Strait of Hormuz, while for Ukraine, such trump cards could be ballistic missiles and their consequences.

Bala also noted that the United States has achieved none of its goals in the war with Iran, except for destruction, and the regime in Iran remains unchanged, supporting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. He emphasized that the American press speaks of a tactical victory, but in reality, it is merely a way out of the deadlock into which Trump has cornered himself with his threats.

Karl Bildt, co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, expressed relief that a terrible escalation has been avoided, but stressed that most issues remain unresolved. Tymofiy Milovanov, president of the Kyiv School of Economics, stated that the sense of impunity for the regime in Iran has been shaken, but the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps remains strong. He also warned against going beyond the goals stated by Trump and entering into an indefinite campaign to change the regime, as this could lead to a real regional war.

Milovanov emphasized that American politicians have long believed that the Middle East could be reordered by force, but this has always ended in failure. He noted that there is no ready alternative for governing the country, and the Iranian diaspora remains fragmented, complicating the possibility of a serious transition.