In an interview on AnewZ TV, Ahmad Hashemi discussed the shifting dynamics of U.S.-Azerbaijan relations, highlighting a bipartisan legislative effort in the U.S. Congress to repeal Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act.
Passed in 1992, Section 907 originally banned direct U.S. aid to Azerbaijan. Today, critics argue the legislation is outdated and fails to reflect modern geopolitical realities. The new repeal bill has gained significant traction, securing prominent Republican co-sponsors such as Congressman Abraham Hamadeh.
As an “America First” Republican, Congressman Hamadeh’s leadership on this issue signals that the Trump administration views Azerbaijan as an essential strategic partner. In discussions with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, Hamadeh emphasized Azerbaijan’s unique geographical significance—neighboring both Iran and Russia—and its critical role in global connectivity, energy, and trade. The initiative underscores a mutual desire between Baku and Washington to forge stronger strategic ties.
Simultaneously, prospects for regional stability are rising through the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP), also known as the Zangezur Corridor. Both Azerbaijan and Armenia are seeking a historic rapprochement to secure lasting peace. Following the restoration of its territorial integrity, Baku is eager to finalize a deal. Meanwhile, Armenian society signaled its mandate for peace following the June 2026 parliamentary election victory of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s party, opening the door for comprehensive agreements with Azerbaijan and Türkiye.
Washington shares this enthusiasm. While President Trump remains heavily focused on managing conflicts with Iran, the administration is closely monitoring the South Caucasus peace process. Securing a diplomatic breakthrough over the TRIPP corridor offers President Trump a vital opportunity to achieve a major foreign policy victory and cement his legacy as an international dealmaker.
Ahmad Hashemi’s Brief Take on The Emerging US-Iran Agreement:
The Iran War Was the Most Significant Foreign Policy Failure of the Trump Administration.
The preliminary US-Iran framework agreement does not signal the birth of a new, stable, peaceful Middle East; it merely pauses a hot war—at least for the time being—while the Cold War continues. The core drivers of regional instability—Iran’s nuclear enrichment, its ballistic missiles, proxy networks, and the security of the Strait of Hormuz—remain insufficiently addressed. This outcome represents a massive strategic defeat for both the United States and Israel. Washington has apparently granted Iran substantial sanctions relief and oil-export access—concessions that did not exist prior to the conflict—while receiving absolutely nothing substantial in return.
5 Core Reasons for Pessimism
Israeli Sabotage: Israel views this deal as an existential threat to its hegemonic ambitions in the region and will actively work to dismantle it.
Irreconcilable Demands: The foundational geopolitical goals and expectations of Washington and Tehran remain fundamentally opposed.
Vanishing Incentives: With the US midterm elections approaching this November, time favors Iran. Tehran has little motivation to offer meaningful concessions now. Paradoxically, the Iranian regime thrives in an environment of chaos and instability.
Empowerment of the Regime: The unnecessary war inadvertently fueled nationalistic sentiments and strengthened the Islamic Republic, neutralizing Iran’s domestic civil society and pro-democracy movement while reinforcing a brutal regime.
Dual Expansionism: A comprehensive, lasting peace in the Middle East is impossible while both regional powers remain ideologically expansionist—Iran via the export of its Islamic Revolution, and Israel via its biblically motivated territorial annexation ambitions.
Shifting Geopolitical Implications
1. Diminished US Global Standing
The conflict exposed severe limitations in American power. Washington failed to bring Iran to heel, secure the Strait of Hormuz, push Saudi Arabia into a hot war, or enforce normalization with Israel. Furthermore, expensive US defense technology struggled to counter cheap Iranian missiles. The US failed to rally NATO or European allies to its cause, could not dissuade China from backing Tehran, and could not stop Gulf states from cutting private, bilateral deals with Iran to insulate themselves from conflict.
2. Israel’s Strategic Overreach
While Israel successfully drew the US into a direct confrontation with Iran, it achieved none of its strategic goals. There was no regime change, no Arab-Israeli military coalition, and no new territorial annexations in Lebanon. Instead, Israel faced public pushback from President Trump after striking Beirut and was forced into an agreement it fiercely opposed. Consequently, American public opinion is shifting, increasingly blaming Tel Aviv for dragging the US into an unnecessary war. This dynamic risks generational damage to the bilateral relationship, especially given Israel’s systemic reliance on US funding, weaponry, and diplomatic cover.
Domestic Political Friction & Historical Context
President Trump is going to have a hard time selling any agreement with Iran as a victory that is worth the blood and treasure spent on it. Many influential “Israel First” figures have already turned against it. The internal American battle over this deal will be fierce. Hardline pro-Israel decision-shapers and neoconservatives within the US—including Mark Levin, Laura Loomer, and Lindsey Graham—are furious and will actively attempt to abort any future framework. Meanwhile, “America First” voices like former counterterrorism official Joe Kent argue that the only way to ensure the ceasefire holds is to completely cut military and intelligence assistance to Israel.
Simultaneously, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is poised to openly challenge President Trump. Netanyahu needs to oppose peace and deliberately prolong wars to evade his corruption trials, even if he has to commit war crimes and genocide in the process. Facing weak domestic poll numbers ahead of Israel’s October elections, a desperate Netanyahu will likely resort to high-profile defiance of Washington to salvage his political standing, mirroring his historic 2015 address to the US Congress against the Obama administration.
The Cost of Undoing the JCPOA: Ultimately, this conflict underscores the tragedy of ditching the 2015 JCPOA. The original nuclear deal was a landmark diplomatic achievement that contained Iran’s nuclear ambitions. However, driven heavily by animosity toward Obama—because he is Black and his middle name is Hussein—and a political obsession with erasing his predecessor’s legacy, Trump nixed that agreement. As a result, the US has incurred massive global economic costs only to settle for a far weaker, deeply flawed agreement that leaves a brutal Iranian regime rewarded and firmly in place. This stands as the most significant foreign policy failure of the Trump administration.
Ahmad Hashemi discussed the prospect of a US-Iran deal and other geopolitical developments regarding Middle East tensions on AsiaOne TV, focusing specifically on the relationship between Washington and Tehran. A diplomatic breakthrough seems near as Pakistan confirms a finalized draft agreement aimed at ending the conflict between the US and Iran. However, sharp divisions over technical details and enforcement mechanisms continue to threaten the fragile process.
Key Points of Discussion
Iran’s Stance on Compliance: Iranian Parliament Speaker Qalibaf warned that commitments must be upheld without excuses. This statement aims to pressure Washington regarding compliance. The Iranian regime remains skeptical, worried that negotiations could serve as a cover for future military strikes.
The “Israel First” Obstacle: “Israel-first” politicians, such as Senator Lindsey Graham, and highly influential pro-Israel think tanks in Washington, D.C.—such as WINEP, UANI, JINSA, and the FDD, and other neoconservative, pro-Israel, and “forever-war” centers of power—are not interested in Pakistan’s mediating role. They have raised various excuses, including questioning Pakistan’s reliability as an ally and mediator, even dragging up past issues like Osama bin Laden to argue that negotiation and mediation efforts should stop. Neoconservative politicians and the right-wing government in Israel oppose this round of diplomatic efforts entirely. They reject giving diplomacy a chance, believing instead that war is the primary tool in the US national security and foreign policy toolbox. Consequently, they actively oppose any mediation efforts or diplomatic breakthroughs.
Nuclear Issues and Enrichment: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi suggested a phased approach, deferring sensitive issues like uranium enrichment and stockpiles. However, Iran is highly unlikely to relinquish its 60% enriched uranium stockpile, viewing it as a critical bargaining chip and a matter of national pride.
Misinformation Campaigns: Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif warned of an ongoing misinformation campaign targeting the peace deal. Prominent neoconservative and pro-Israel figures in Washington are viewed as opponents of this mediation, preferring military options over diplomacy.
Leadership and Final Decisions
Despite divisions within Iranian society, a centralized authority oversees the nation’s strategy. If a deal is authorized by the leadership, the relevant officials have the mandate to execute it, ensuring that internal opposition will not block final policy decisions.
Ahmad Hashemi, Director of the Middle East and Central Asia program at the Global Policy Institute, discussed the expanding cooperation between Baku and Washington.
Geopolitical Importance of Azerbaijan
Strategic Location: Azerbaijan is uniquely positioned between Russia, Iran, and Central Asia, making it the only nation bordering both key US adversaries (Iran and Russia).
Middle Power Diplomacy: The country actively promotes dialogue and acts as an independent norm entrepreneur bridging Eastern and Western interests.
Energy Security and Transit
Alternative Energy Routes: Azerbaijan provides Europe with vital alternative energy pathways, especially critical given ongoing geopolitical tensions in the Persian Gulf region.
The Zangezur Corridor: Often referred to by US leadership as the “Trump Route for Peace and Prosperity,” this developing transit route aims to strongly enhance East-West trade, connectivity, and regional stability.
Central Asian Connectivity: The nation offers landlocked Central Asian countries an essential independent route to the global market, helping them reduce their reliance on Moscow and Beijing.
The dialogue highlights a shifting relationship, moving beyond traditional energy partnerships toward comprehensive strategic and diplomatic integration.
Washington Must Calibrate Expectations and Negotiate with Iran
By Ahmad Hashemi
May 28,2026
President Donald Trump recently said that he was ready to resume strikes on Iran but held off on the plan at the request of Gulf Arab leaders. If anything, this is indicative of the fact that we have once again arrived at a perilous moment in American foreign policy—one that could drag us into another “forever war” in the Middle East.
Yet, Trump’s military and national security advisors need to ask themselves if, militarily, the U.S. can achieve more than what has already been accomplished; considering that after a long 40-day campaign against Iran marked by real operational achievements but profound strategic failure, the limits of military power have been laid bare.
The Illusion of Capitulation
President Trump made some statements against the entirety of the Iranian population. In essence he threatened to wipe out the whole Iranian civilization if the regime will not surrender unconditionally. This does not consider that Iran, leaving the current rulers aside for a moment, is still home to a proud, ancient civilization. Patriotic fervor and the Shiite faith command Iranians to die for the noble cause of defending their homeland and never surrendering to an arrogant bully, especially in the face of disrespectful, apocalyptic, rhetoric coming from President Trump.
The United States possesses the most powerful military and can win almost any war. However, as French statesman Georges Clemenceau once said, “It is far easier to make war than peace.” And in the U.S. case, winning battles can be easy, but a failure of a clear strategic vision may allow a superpower to win many battles without achieving a peace that will secure meaningful strategic objectives.
President Trump can declare victory and end this war with Iran. With significant military achievements at hand, it is high time for Washington to give diplomacy a chance and see the bigger picture through the lens of strategic insight. The central problem confronting the Trump administration is not a lack of kinetic options, but a mismatch between war tactics and the achievement of strategic goals. If Washington genuinely seeks long-term stability in the region, it must set aside (for now at least) the unlikely outcome of Iranian capitulation and reassess what the diplomatic negotiations currently underway can realistically achieve.
The administration’s current deadlock stems from a mutual, unyielding belief in victory. President Trump appears convinced that sustained pressure (the blockade) will force Tehran to yield, while Iran believes it retains vital strategic leverage—control over the Strait of Hormuz, where Tehran believes it can hold one-fifth of the world’s energy hostage in order to extract concessions. In this deadlock some still harbor the belief that America can launch a new, massive and decisive military attack that will force Iran to the negotiating table on American terms. Such a scenario, while theoretically possible, fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the regime and the resilience of the Iranian people.
A more viable diplomatic approach
The reality is that the only viable way to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a vital global energy artery, is through an agreement that acknowledges Iran’s security interests in the region and ends the naval blockade. Military options exist, but as recent unsuccessful experiences—including “Project Freedom”—demonstrate, attempting to force the strait open militarily triggers an immediate Iranian response. Even an expanded military campaign or a high-risk ground operation cannot overcome Iran’s vast geography and complicated terrain. Such an operation will not stop Iran from launching missiles or drones at commercial tankers.
To date, the operational achievements of the U.S. military campaign have failed to produce a cumulative strategic victory. The Islamic Republic has not collapsed. According to U.S. intelligence estimates, its conventional capabilities, while diminished by the bombing campaign, remain significant, and its enriched nuclear materials are still intact. When examining Iran’s conduct, it is clear that the regime has not only stayed within its pre-war red lines but has actively hardened them.
The 40-day war has shocked the psyche of the Iranian people. It has had a rally-around-the-flag effect, bringing pro-regime and anti-regime crowds, as well as oppressed ethnic minorities, closer to a previously highly unpopular regime.
Emboldened by not being defeated by two nuclear-armed military powers, Tehran remains entirely unwilling to discuss the nuclear issue unless it receives economic relief, guarantees for ending the conflict, and recognition of maritime freedom for Iranian ships. Therefore, under its current collective leadership, dominated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), capitulation is simply not an option.
The Limits of Kinetic Action
This U.S. strategic misconception is most evident regarding the Iranian nuclear issue. The war was initially justified on the premise that Iran was on the verge of acquiring a nuclear bomb and that only military force could stop it. Yet neither assumption withstands serious scrutiny.
U.S. intelligence estimates assess that Iran has not made the final political decision to weaponize its nuclear program. More importantly, there are limits as to what kinetic action targeting nuclear sites can achieve. Indeed, despite massive airstrikes on enrichment facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, discussions in Washington and Jerusalem still revolve around Iran’s remaining nuclear potential. Airstrikes can damage facilities and delay timelines, but they cannot destroy accumulated scientific knowledge, industrial expertise, and all technological infrastructure. Crucially, continuing down this path may accelerate the exact outcome Washington seeks to prevent.
Iran’s former supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, had issued a religious decree, or fatwa, which forbade the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons. But with the political landscape shifting in Tehran, the new hardline leadership may draw a painfully simple lesson from American pressure: states without a nuclear deterrent remain perpetually vulnerable to external attack. By continuing a kinetic campaign to prevent an Iranian bomb, the United States risks pushing Iran directly into weaponizing its capabilities as an ultimate guarantee of regime survival.
Seeking China’s Help is Playing into Beijing’s Hands
Meanwhile, President Trump directly sought Beijing’s help to pressure Iran into reopening the Strait of Hormuz during his recent trip to China. Yet, relying on the United States’ top adversary to break the Iranian stalemate is not going to be productive. The administration of President Trump does not need a Henry Kissinger as its National Security Advisor to realize that Beijing has a vested interest in seeing the U.S. dragged into conflicts in the Middle East and distracted away from the Taiwan issue.
China has no interest in a nuclear-armed Iran, but it is equally unprepared to help Washington achieve a decisive victory over Iran. Beijing views the Islamic Republic as a critical counterweight in its broader strategic competition with the United States. It will continue to purchase discounted Iranian oil and provide dual-use materials to support Iran’s missile infrastructure.
A Pivot Toward Strategic Reality
President Trump faces a fundamental strategic choice. He cannot simultaneously frame Iran as a regime to be obliterated while expecting meaningful peace negotiations to succeed. More wars will not produce a shift in Iranian behavior because there is a vast, at the moment unbridgeable gap between inflicting operational damage to Iran and forcing a strategic surrender.
A diplomatic solution is still possible, but it requires Washington to engage directly with the substance of Iran’s core demands: ending the economic siege, restoring maritime access, and reducing regional pressures before addressing long-term nuclear constraints. This does not mean trusting Tehran; it means recognizing strategic reality.
All in all, an imperfect negotiated framework with intrusive inspections—perhaps similar to the denounced JCPOA—remains the only viable path to constrain Iran’s nuclear capabilities. If the administration refuses to adjust its assumptions as to what is feasible, the options narrow to a prolonged, destabilizing stalemate or a renewed military confrontation that deepens the escalation without ever resolving the core conflict.
Legal Disclaimer:
The Global Policy Institute (GPI) publishes this content on an “as-is” basis, without any express or implied warranties of any kind. GPI explicitly disclaims any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information, images, videos, or sources referenced in this article. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of GPI. Any concerns, copyright issues, or complaints regarding this content should be directed to the author.
Ahmad Hashemi is Director of the Middle East and Central Asia Program at the Global Policy Institute, a naturalized U.S. citizen and former Iranian Foreign Ministry official, journalist, and pro-democracy activist. He holds advanced degrees in political science, defense, and strategic studies, is pursuing an MA in Strategic Intelligence Studies, and has published widely in major international outlets in multiple languages.
The Limits of Military Power: Following a 40-day U.S. military campaign against Iran, the author argues that while the U.S. achieved operational success, it resulted in a strategic failure. Further kinetic actions are unlikely to achieve anything more.
The Illusion of Capitulation: President Trump’s threats of total destruction disregard Iran’s ancient civilization and patriotic fervor, which drive the populace to resist rather than surrender. The current deadlock stems from Trump’s belief that a blockade will force a surrender, countered by Iran’s leverage over the Strait of Hormuz.
The Failure to Force Collapse: The military campaign has not collapsed the Iranian regime, destroyed its conventional capabilities, or compromised its enriched nuclear materials. Instead, the war triggered a “rally-around-the-flag” effect, uniting previously fractured pro- and anti-regime factions against external aggression.
The Nuclear Dilemma: While the war was justified to stop Iran from building a bomb, airstrikes cannot erase scientific and technical knowledge. Continued military pressure risks incentivizing Iran’s new, hardline IRGC-dominated collective leadership to weaponize its program as an ultimate guarantee for survival.
Misplaced Reliance on China: Seeking Beijing’s help to pressure Iran is counterproductive. China has a vested interest in seeing the U.S. remains distracted in the Middle East—away from Taiwan—and views Iran as a critical strategic counterweight to American power.
A Shift to Diplomacy: The author concludes that the only viable way to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and constrain Iran’s nuclear program is through direct diplomacy. Washington must calibrate its expectations, abandon demands for unconditional capitulation, and negotiate a framework—similar to the JCPOA—that addresses Iran’s security interests and ends the economic siege.
