Potential negotiations between the United States and Iran are in the air. At least, that's what news agencies seem to be reporting. While Tehran has recently set six conditions for a meaningful negotiation, including, in particular, a guaranteed end to hostilities, the closure of American bases, and the recognition of compensation, Washington has also set just as many, including a five-year halt to its missile program and an irreversible freeze on its uranium enrichment program.

The true objective of Donald Trump's United States appears to have been unclear: on the one hand, pre-conflict diplomatic dialogue seemed to focus on dismantling Iran's nuclear program, while on the other, the real objective, with good likelihood, was the removal of Tehran's leadership. This latter objective, it seems, has not been fully achieved.

That every conflict is narrated and experienced through ideological filters of various kinds, both on the national and international level, would not seem to represent anything new.

The taco (Trump Always Chickens Out), as some US press have defined it, has accustomed the world to its seesawing, sometimes incomprehensible, experiences on a strictly strategic level. This is especially true within a social system characterized not only by profound weariness and disaffection toward the ruling classes, but also, and above all, by uncertainty about the future. The dominant ideological narrative surrounding ongoing conflicts, which could be described as "traditional," seeks to assert and polarize the concepts of good and evil, good and bad, invader and victim, as opposed to one another, likely ignoring, or rather neglecting (if one may use such a term) any more complex analysis involving, more generally, the humanitarian, sociological, and teleological consequences—only, it would seem, to justify the otherwise incomprehensible military action (at least that's the timid impression one gets). Each of the parties involved in the conflict would seem to want to tell its own justifying truth, aiming to obtain an increasingly weak international consensus precisely because it is inevitably characterized by a "contrasting narrative" that is dissonant or at least perceived as such.

Conflict, contrary to what might seem to be perceived from the actions of the great powers, and more recently from Donald Trump's United States, cannot be the sole instrument for resolving disputes in a geopolitical context purportedly characterized by a new global order (whatever that may be). Today, more than ever, there is a need to bring dialogue and mediation back to the forefront. This is especially true when common sense, the need to rationalize surrounding events, seems self-centered and biased toward the prevalence of personal interests. Even within the European Union, positions do not appear unanimous, especially considering Viktor Orbán's Hungary's veto of the €90 billion loan to Ukraine. These would appear to be significant signals, not to be overlooked otherwise, as they potentially indicate a shift in intent aimed at bringing nationalistic interests back to the center, perhaps in opposition to the common interests of the Union, which, institutionally, would appear to be undermined from within (the doubtful formula is inescapable). This would have repercussions on its image abroad, as a lack of cohesion, or even the mere appearance of such a lack, could only translate into a sign of weakness, especially at a historical moment of complex definition and management.

Giuseppina Di Salvatore – Lawyer, Nuoro

© Riproduzione riservata