US Strategy of Frozen Conflicts Hinders Peace in Palestine, Ukraine, Iran
Translated & summarized from Alarab by baba
An analysis posits that the United States is deliberately maintaining frozen conflicts in Palestine, Ukraine, and Iran to serve its strategic interests, rather than seeking genuine peace. This approach allows for political maneuvering and management of global power dynamics. In Palestine, elections and the Iranian issue contributed to stalled talks, while the Ukraine conflict is seen as a tool to weaken Europe. Regarding Iran, the U.S. employs maximum pressure, delaying resolution and potentially stabilizing energy markets. This strategy enables Washington to maintain influence as a mediator without definitive solutions.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- The U.S. is accused of deliberately maintaining frozen conflicts in Palestine, Ukraine, and Iran for strategic gain.
- Washington's strategy involves keeping crises unresolved to facilitate domestic political maneuvering and international power balances.
- Israeli elections and the Iranian issue reportedly led to the postponement of peace talks in Palestine.
- The Ukraine war is viewed as a U.S. tactic to weaken Europe and increase its security dependence.
- Negotiations with Iran are stalled by U.S. demands for maximum pressure and Iranian conditions for sanctions relief.
- This U.S. policy allows it to act as a mediator without committing to final resolutions.
A recent analysis suggests that the stalled peace negotiations and delayed solutions in global hotspots like Palestine, Ukraine, and Iran are not merely political failures but a deliberate strategy by the United States. Washington's approach appears to prioritize maintaining fragile truces or controllable stalemates over achieving comprehensive peace, serving its domestic political maneuvering and management of international power balances. This strategy involves discussing peace without enacting real settlements, keeping crises unresolved to leverage them for political and economic gains.
In Palestine, peace talks were postponed, with Israeli elections cited as a reason, as Netanyahu avoided political flexibility for fear of appearing weak. This stance, supported by Washington, effectively froze the second phase of an agreement, with reports indicating the American peace plan's suspension due to Israeli elections and the overshadowing Iranian issue. The Royal Institute of International Affairs in Britain noted that the war in Iran pushed the Gaza file into the background, reducing external pressure on Israel and allowing it to maintain hardline positions. Trump reportedly avoided political confrontation with Netanyahu over Gaza, contributing to the Palestinian track's stagnation due to a lack of genuine U.S. pressure.
Regarding the Russia-Ukraine war, while peace talks had previously halted over territorial and security disputes, the timing and nature of U.S. actions suggest a deeper intent to keep the conflict manageable. Resumed talks in Abu Dhabi in November 2026 focused solely on prisoner exchanges, with no near-term solutions for sovereignty or a comprehensive ceasefire in sight. This reflects the Trump administration's desire to exploit the war to weaken Europe and reinforce European security dependence on the U.S.
Concerning Iran, the strategy of hindering negotiations stems from Washington's aim to impose victor's terms through maximum pressure rather than mutual concessions. Tehran, conversely, demands the lifting of the naval blockade and the release of frozen assets as a prerequisite, which Washington rejects, prolonging negotiations indefinitely. Iranian circles deny reports of an imminent breakthrough, suggesting the U.S. objective is merely to stabilize energy markets and lower prices. From a U.S. perspective, maintaining a state of neither war nor peace justifies continued military presence to serve its Middle East strategy. Ultimately, these developments are interpreted not as diplomatic impotence but as managed negotiations to balance relations with allies and adversaries, and to placate public opinion, allowing Washington to act as an arbiter without committing to final solutions and keeping conflicts contained to avoid direct confrontation.