Week signals: Is the deal real?
Plus: watch points for Switzerland, the G7, Nepal, the US, and the UK.
Hello,
In this edition of Week Signals:
IN REVIEW. From 1492 to 14 points of capitulation; the limits of sea power; Suez and Constantinople.
UP AHEAD. Votes in Switzerland and the UK, meetings in the Alps, Beijing and Washington.
Geopolitical Dispatch is the daily client brief of Geopolitical Strategy - a specialist advisory firm helping leaders understand the geopolitical forces reshaping business and world affairs. Our work includes strategic forecasting, scenario planning and geopolitical risk workshops, crisis simulations, and GD Corporate Memberships. Learn more or upgrade for the full edition below
The Week in Review: The art of surrender
The week began with an escalation in the Gulf. It ended with a ceasefire extension deal that’s “never been closer” in the words of Iran’s foreign minister, not just Donald Trump. Oil futures are back to levels last seen in early March. There is talk of JD Vance flying to Geneva on Sunday to sign an MoU that could eventually end the war.
This is not our first rodeo and it’s good to stay sceptical on such things. Trump has declared a near deal at least 39 times. Iran is not exactly trustworthy. And Israel seems to be openly opposed to anything that undermines its stated aims. Yet just in case Trump does take the loss this weekend – and that the hype was more than just a ploy to smooth the path for Elon Musk’s IPO – it’s worth examining what it could mean, beyond a further collapse in oil prices and another share market spike.
As of writing, only Iran has presented its version of the mooted memorandum, which – adding to our scepticism – Trump has repudiated as “pathetic” and “very dishonourable”. Yet the US has not publicised its own version of the draft (should one exist), and with other parties, such as Pakistan, seeming to confirm a “final text”, we can only go with what we (think) we know.
In short, it’s another 14-point surrender document for the US. The unfreezing of $24 billion in Iranian assets, even if paid electronically via the UAE – rather than on JCPOA-style pallets of US banknotes – will be seen by many as a reward for Iran’s belligerence. A proposed $300 billion reconstruction plan, as US non-military discretionary budgets continue to be trimmed, will be seen as a tribute offering. Allowing Iranian (and potentially Omani) “arrangements” for the Strait may not necessarily mean tolls, but it would put the US’s erstwhile Gulf allies in a weaker long-term position and invalidate the entire point of the US Fifth Fleet and maritime law. The clauses on Lebanon and uranium would simply be unacceptable for Israel, not to mention most of the Republican Party.
Should this document, or a version of it, be signed, it signals not only a repudiation of Trump’s war in the Gulf but of Benjamin Netanyahu’s political career. More broadly, it potentially signals an end to not only US predominance in the Middle East, but US predominance in Eurasia. Like Ukraine breaking the myth of Russian invincibility on land, it would mean Iran has broken the myth of American invincibility at sea. And the document, if signed, would – while providing a short-term boost for markets – would not only be another nail in Pax Americana’s coffin, but that of the entire Western project. My colleague Oscar Martin explains.
 | A guest post by
|