IMPORTANT NOTE: To understand this article it is essential to read it in the order shown.
Translated from Spanish with PROMT. It may contain translation errors.
Causes of counterproductions in the Administrations of Joe Biden and Donald Trump
The administrations of US Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump have been characterized by the counterproductions of their actions. As for this characteristic of the Biden Administration, I already wrote in my book Applying Anti-Nuclear Attack Vaccine, listing many of its counterproductive actions and analyzing its causes, which are reduced to one: excess, excess, abuse.
Applying Anti-Nuclear Attack Vaccine - Download
The most disastrous and obvious so far of Donald Trump's counterproductive actions is his war on Iran, while there are others much more serious, such as his management of the economy, the hostile relationship with China, its relations, also hostile, with the rest of the world and the handling of the migratory problem, although in these cases the disastrous and contrary to what was intended in its consequences is not yet as evident as against Iran it is already being. This, of course, is also due to excessive and inadequate actions, which do not correspond to the necessary, but favor, stoke and worsen it.
I will analyze in the case of Trump the origin of these serious problems, although from another perspective that is complemented by the one exposed in said book, framed more now within my Theory of Universal Equilibrium (TUE), regarding which I have already published a summary, which you can read here:
Theory of Universal Equilibrium
This is something I did not write about in detail in TUE, although it is implicit in the Law of Equilibrium between opposites that I enunciate in it and in other analogous examples that I present and analyze there of the concrete world.
It should be noted the very important fact that a fundamental cause of the problem with Iran is having much more notorious and pressing counterproductive consequences is not only due to the magnitude of this conflict (much larger than the one so far unleashed against China directly, for example), but also the fact, of utmost importance, that this conflict is a result of a whole psychological behavioral pattern of Donald Trump, his Administration and those that precede him, especially since the end of the Cold War, consisting of exceeding, in all his actions (intranational and international) the more they see possible that they can do it.
Pointing out this fact is extremely important because it implies a vicious cycle that feeds itself, like a snowball that the more it falls downhill the bigger it becomes. It's a problem that gets bigger with every action and with every passing minute, even, however, in the case in question compared, when nothing to the contrary is done to resolve it, even if the ball stopped, but nothing was done to reduce it to a reasonable and sustainable size, according to the laws of physics and the Theory of Universal Equilibrium, which in a way are also physical (and astrophysics), in addition to what we normally describe as social or international relations.
I will define here now in a deeper way the reasons for the counterproductive effects, including, primarily, among the examples that I will give, those committed by the Trump Administration and the United States for decades, which are causes, and symptoms at the same time, growing of the decadence that this country and the West suffer.
As I have explained in my book Theory of Universal Equilibrium, every isolated system tends to equilibrium, to divide itself first into two poles opposite each other, which are balanced by acquiring quantitatively equal opposite forces. And that tendency always materializes, or recovers when for any event it has been lost, even if the process takes some time.
Thus, for example, for this reason, the world was divided into two poles that were balanced during the Cold War; subsequently, with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, that equilibrium was lost, but, as I predicted in that book, immediately afterwards there was, by universal nature, a tendency to the recovery of the balance lost on the political, economic and military levels on the planet (an isolated system), which is currently taking shape.
In fact, although in international politics it is normal today to talk about the world transitioning towards a multipolarity, the reality is that this is nothing more than an intermediate path to a new bipolarity, analogous to the one that existed during the Cold War, although with the replacement of the Soviet Union by Russia, China and other countries.
Even if politicians foresaw this reality of where we are heading, they would still say, today, for mere political reasons, that we are heading for a multipolar world, only as a way to show a degree of restraint (and avoid counterproductions) that does not produce an appearance of activism to conform only two poles. The mere observation that we are heading to a multipolar world, arouses rejection and adverse reactions in countries, almost all Western, who have constituted the unipolar side, and speak, henceforth, of a tendency to a new bipolarity would exacerbate the rejections and not only in those countries, but also the fears and reservations in those on the side that are currently heading to form the new pole; which would hinder and slow down, inconveniently for everyone, this transition process.
Even countries that do not want to belong to any of these poles will be forced to take sides to survive in an interconnected, interinflaced and interdependent world. Some of them, even, will not make the decision completely by themselves, but will be coerced to do so or will be absorbed or kidnapped by force by other stronger countries, as in the case of Venezuela.
I cannot speak much here as to why isolated systems always reach a state of equilibrium, anywhere in the Universe. To better understand this, I recommend reading my book Theory of Universal Equilibrium. Here I will only say that when an isolated system, such as planet Earth, or a house isolated from the rest of the world, enters into imbalance, the strongest part, block or group tends to abuse the remaining part and even itself (of the parts that constitute it) and, consequently, the pole, faction or weaker side, the abused, tends to oppose the abusive party more strongly, at the same time that the constituent part of the oppressor or stronger part do the same, weakening this part, when internal cohesion is lost and even when parts of them that decide to migrate to the opposite side are lost. This unfailingly happens in every isolated system, anywhere in the Universe, even 10.000 million light years from planet Earth, however advanced a civilization may be.
This characteristic of the Universe not only makes all isolated systems tend to justice and progress, but guarantees, to the maximum, these states. Thus, an isolated system not only always tends to balance, but at the same time also, always, to justice and progress to the maximum possible degrees.
Why can I assure that it is so in every corner of the entire Universe, and not only on planet Earth or among human beings? Because this is not an optional feature of the Universe, but the only way it can exist. That is to say, it is not only a question of maximizing and guaranteeing progress and justice throughout the Universe, but that the Universe could not exist in any other way. Here are the causes of this:
If there were not that process always tending towards equilibrium in each isolated system (in direct proportion to its isolation, that is, the more isolated it is), as is the Earth at present, then the entire Universe would not be in equilibrium, and we can safely presume that it is at present, because it could be in imbalance (without any limitation, without any tendency against, towards equilibrium), then it would soon reach (long ago I would have predicted) a state of extreme, absolute imbalance, consisting of a monopolarity or singularity so compressed, a black hole so infinitely small and dark, that there would be nothing perceptible in the whole Universe, except the tendency to be dragged all into that hole (although soon there would be nothing to drag). The whole Universe would be a black hole, and to talk about what inside that hole might have made as little sense as to talk about what on its outside might have. In other words, there would be absolutely nothing in the Universe, either inside or outside that single black hole that would constitute it. And since talking about an infinitely compressed and small black hole will be the same as talking about nothing, it would be practically nothing more than talking about a mere abstraction, as in mathematical idealities (although there would be no living being or machine to talk about it).
The tendency to equilibrium in isolated systems is what allows the existence of the Universe; it is an extremely fundamental or essential characteristic of it, without which not only justice, progress and life could not exist, but also the Universe itself, no matter, space or time.
Without the progress and justice that balance brings, life could not exist either, for the same reason that matter, space and time would not exist: In any isolated system in which an unlimited imbalance could exist, there would be an unlimited reduction of justice and progress, which would put an end to life, in any form, or prevent its emergence. Life is the result of the opposition between the parts, and is directly proportional to the balance between such parts.
In short, balance is synonymous with justice and progress and imbalance is synonymous with injustice and backwardness. Moreover, justice and progress influence each other. The greater the justice, the greater the progress and vice versa. And the greater the injustice, the greater the backwardness, and vice versa.
In the case of the problems that the Trump Administration is generating, the analysis of why progress depends on balance is essential. The explanation, in essence, is so elementary that anyone with a minimum of knowledge of economics should know: progress depends on competition, as is well known.
But this also implies that the degree of progress depends on the degree of competence. Which in turn means that the more a country or a person is closed to competition, the more it is protected against it, the less it progresses, the more it is delayed. This backwardness is one of the most serious US problems that the Trump Administration is generating through its protectionism, by refusing to compete freely with China and other countries, an issue to which I will return.
For overcoming the decline of the West (the United States and much of Europe), it is essential to know its causes, or the cause to which they are reduced: the imbalance, also growing, generated with the end of the Cold War, which stripped the United States of the counterweight that the communist bloc meant to it.
From the point of view currently prevailing in Western countries, this freed them from a despicable, unnecessary weight, which they had been trying to get rid of. However, the fall of the Soviet Union is the worst thing to have happened to the United States in its entire history, and one of the gravest calamities to have struck Europe.
The worst thing that can happen to any living being or living entity (a country, for example) is that its main competitor disappears or weakens markedly, since its own progress and justice, and its life, depend on that competence. The American "victory" against the USSR was in fact a huge catastrophe for the United States itself, which has been atrophying it, in all respects, ever since. Meanwhile, at the same time, has been happening what, by universal law of nature, always happens in these cases: Since the injustice of the United States in its international and intranational relations was increasing, it was at the same time stimulating and producing a growing progress and justice (awareness and thirst of its need, and its consequent implementation) in Russia, China and other countries, which have been victims and witnesses of the worse American abuses every day.
After a few decades, in which the "winning" and increasingly oppressive side, the West, was stagnating, atrophying and degrading in all aspects (economic, military, social, cultural, etc.), due to that lack of competition and rivalry, at the same time the "losing" or defeated and increasingly oppressed side, the East, was gaining in progress in the same aspects, until the time arrived, inevitable and predictable, to begin to face the oppressor part, which is the time in which we find ourselves.
Before proceeding, I must make an indispensable clarification so that this can be understood. The equilibrium to which I refer always occurs in an isolated system, in every isolated system in the Universe, although it is not necessarily so in communicated systems. It is very necessary to know this difference in possibilities between these two possible conditions of the systems: isolation and communication with respect to other systems.
For example, in the case of a family living in an isolated house with any other persons or living beings who can exert significant influence, there will inevitably be a balance of two forces when there are conflicts between their parts. If the father is too strong in confronting his wife, one or more of the children will side with her, or vice versa, but the opposing forces will balance out. If one of them dies or leaves the house, those who remain will change their positions so that the balance that has been lost is restored. If in the house lives only a couple, without children, and the man is physically stronger than the woman, this will become more aggressive to the extent that, causing an imbalance, the aggressions of the man become abuses, and will do so to the extent sufficient to neutralize that imbalance.
On the other hand, in the case of a family that lives in a house communicated with other people, for example, in a colony, the outcome can be different. There will not necessarily be a balance between the members of the family, since other people from another or other houses, or the police, or, sometimes, by the mere threat of this happening, may intervene.
The common thing in communicated systems or subsystems is imbalance, and people usually only know of cases of this type of systems, the communicated, in imbalance. For example, in the newspaper every day we see news such as that one person or several beat or killed another or other people, or, from time to time, that one country attacked and defeated another. In the case of these systems, it is not even usually known how many parts they are composed of or what other external systems are influencing, because either they are not composed of the victim and the perpetrator alone, or because there are other parts outside of that system that are influencing.
But in the general system, which is not in relation to any other significant influence, and in which all the actors are visible, the result is always predictable (predictable): equilibrium, although within it, in the subsystems, imbalances may occur, which neutralize each other.
Understand that the cause of the decline of a "winning" country or bloc of countries is imbalance (which has atrophied, stagnated and made him abusive towards others and against himself), and who, therefore, is not actually a winner, but a loser and victim of his circumstances, is indispensable to overcome decay.
Otherwise, that country, instead of seeking balance by moderating its actions, will feel threatened by those who defend themselves from its abuses, and will attack those healthy balancing attempts of other countries, worsening the situation, for those countries; but above all for itself, because every oppressor country or person, within any isolated system, is at a disadvantage in relation to the oppressed party.
Any act that seeks to maintain or defend an imbalance is counterproductive, because it is excessive, and it is much more so if what it seeks is to increase that imbalance.
In my book Applying Anti-Nuclear Attack Vaccine, I explained, with multiple examples, that counterproductions are effects of acting excessively, abusively, of exerting any influence (even beneficial) excessively, with quantitative abuse. If, for example, you want to strengthen a regiment of soldiers by incentivizing them with something, such as freedom or gifts, and that incentive is disproportionate or disproportionate to what they need or deserve, they are weakened, rather than strengthened. And so it is also when another person or a country is attacked, for any cause. The effect is counterproductive in all these cases and in all their analogues of excesses.
How to know in advance if any war is going to be won or lost
Based on the above, the United States has lost all its wars because all its wars have been in order to increase a geopolitical imbalance. So a very simple way to know in advance if a war (in the isolated Earth system) that is considered to be waged is going to be won or lost is to answer this question:
Is it considered to be carried out in order to achieve a balance (or approach it) or in order to produce (or increase) an imbalance?
If the plan is with the first of the objectives, it is almost certain that the war will be lost. If it is with the second end, the war will most likely be won.
The degree of probabilities that I mention here, by saying "it is almost certain that" and "most likely," depends on the degree of equilibrium or imbalance already existing in the system and the degree of imbalance or equilibrium that is intended to be established.
Thus, the greater the existing imbalance, the greater the difficulty in winning a war in which it is intended to further increase that imbalance, and the more difficult the greater the imbalance it is intended to add.
America is like a spirited (and hyperactive) boy who looks and walks everywhere in search of something to do (for his benefit). There is nothing wrong with this in itself. This is what allowed this country to achieve a level of progress for which it could compete with the Soviet Union. When this country disintegrated, the boy (USA) had the opportunity to appropriate many things that were abandoned by the USSR, and he did, which is natural. On a planet where for the first time this happens (a unipolarity), that boy does not know that what he found abandoned and took for himself, in a way does not belong to him or belongs to him only temporarily, while the owner reappears.
In any system or planet (isolated) anywhere in the Universe, there are always two egalitarian owners of that system. Two are always owners equally, equally, and are always in competition with each other. This is a universal law that implies two abstract owners, who always take a concrete form that can vary or change over time. The USSR, like the US, was never the eternal owner of that place. Each owner owns it and keeps it while he achieves it, but all the others also have the opportunity to be the owner of one, and only one at most, of those two halves of the system.
Life, interaction, interrelation, "game" or international relationship within any isolated system (such as, for example, a planet like Earth), the terrain (court, board, arena) as in many sports, is always divided into two parts that are always equal in size and shape (otherwise the game would not be fair), which can, by turns, be occupied by many different teams; and it is in this sense that although a team dominates a game, for example football, it never corresponds, in its own right, more than half of the playing field. And here the analogy ends, because any sport takes place within a communicated system, not in an isolated one, and therefore in sports one competitor can beat the other; but in an isolated system (like Earth), winning the competition is very rarely possible and that victory is always temporary, for a very short time.
The Theory of Universal Equilibrium does not say that imbalance is impossible (it does not say that it is impossible for one side to beat the other within an isolated system); what it explicitly says is that whenever this happens, the equilibrium is restored as soon as possible. It is not, therefore, a fulfillment of a rigidity or mathematical accuracy in its details (although yes in its essence), ideal or abstract, but of something concrete flexible in details, as, for example, in the case in the essentials analogous that individuals and species of living beings (as they are known on Earth) always depend on water (as of balance) to live, although they can withstand brief periods of scarcity of this element. In real or concrete life, perfection does not exist in the details, but in the essentials.
Civilization on planet Earth is too young to have more than once experience of geopolitical unipolarity, and since this is the first time this has happened here, the boy "winner" now walks the world in the belief that what in recent decades has been found, forsaken, and taking to himself, is his, to such a degree that, possibly, during that time he became convinced even that God granted him that privilege, for some extraordinary merit, which makes it even more difficult for him to live with others who, after a time of absence, they approach to recover what corresponds to them.
It is not that Russia and China have known this in a rationalist (a priori) or empiricist (a posteriori) scientific way, and that is why they do it, because for the case that knowledge is dispensable: They do it by a survival instinct, which translates into common sense, that inhabits all living beings of the universe, by which when we see that a part is being abusive as a result of an excess of power that has accumulated, it is vitally necessary that the rest of the system unite its forces to limit it and return it to moderation, for the benefit of justice and the progress of the whole system. It is like when a group of people (even if they are unknown to each other) see in the street a dog with rage attacking others; they immediately come together and coordinate to do something about that problem; and if four people are not enough, call another or others. And if all of them are not enough, then they use smarter, riskier, more aggressive or more violent methods.
Because of such human inexperience, it is understandable that when a boy first finds himself in that situation, he will react with skepticism, disbelief, disappointment, disillusionment, indignation, and resistance. However, is the knowledge of balance really bad news? No, of course not. It is actually the best news there can be, for any living being or group of these, because it implies a guarantee of justice (and equity), progress and survival in an isolated system.
The acquisition, acceptance and application of this knowledge of the equilibrium that governs the whole Universe is the best way out of the serious problem of the decadence of a country. The only other way out that the oppressor or usurper has is to wait for others to force him to moderate himself.
If starting a war that seeks to increase an imbalance leads to failure or is counterproductive, why could the United States take Venezuela? Because that was not a war, but a delusion and self-deception counterproductive. A deception of the president of that country, through a surreptitious negotiation, which possibly involved the payment of the reward that was already offered, or undoubtedly the simple payment of keeping that power, shared. And at the same time a self-deception of the United States towards itself, by which it was convinced that it could the war against Iran, which it immediately undertook.
In stricter terms of the Theory of Universal Equilibrium, when the US took Venezuela, it increased the imbalance that already existed and, with it, at the same time, it proportionally increased (enormously, since it was a kidnapping of enormous weight, economic and political) the tendency to equilibrium, that is, the pressure, from other parts of the world, towards equilibrium. That was not very noticeable in the following weeks, because Russia and China, due to the sobriety and moderation that assists them as accustomed to being oppressed, fighters and patients for decades, almost kept silent. They expressed, of course, their disagreement. But Trump, accustomed to expressing his indignation without limitations and immediately, expected Putin and Jinping to react from him and that if they did not do so it was because they were not giving it the importance it had (due to a shortage of intelligence and/or cowardice). This was part of the self-deception. From those moments, knowing that increased pressure towards balance generated by Donald Trump appropriating Venezuela, I knew that Russia and China, despite their astute silence, were going to react in a very different way to the next US attack on Iran than they did in the June 2025 bombings. And so it has been.
As long as Donald Trump continues to consider the healthy and sensible restraint of Vladimir Putin and/or Xi Jinping as weakness (stupidity or fear), he will continue to generate counterproductions in every important thing he does in the international arena, including every action that does not directly relate to Russia and/or China.
The problem of the spirited young man who suddenly stumbles upon the deceptive "gift" of something valuable thrown on the ground and clinging to the idea that he is the owner, is that if he does not return it by his own decision he will be taken away, by violence or by another means depending on how much and how he opposes it.
The increase in imbalance through that form of invasion of Venezuela and its illegal appropriation, then very counterproductive for the US, only that the payment for it was deferred to a later event, in Iran. That is where Russia and China above all and Iran are taking the toll on Donald Trump, doubly: For his excesses against Venezuela and for his excesses against Iran. At the same time, apart from that unpaid bill, there is another debt of the United States and other Western countries to these countries, and many others, for the accumulation of their countless excesses over decades.
In my book Theory of Universal Equilibrium I talk about the fact that there is a type of pleasure (sexual and other types) that I call infractive pleasure, which is naturally propitiated in people when they feel well-being or euphoria. This phenomenon explains decadent results such as that of child exploitation in the Epstein case.
It is necessary to be aware of this and know how to decide how to channel that well-being, euphoria or excess energy. These states are not in themselves bad in any way. And neither is always the infractive pleasure, obtainable from doing forbidden things, as long as such infractions do not contravene any law, but only break taboos and social conventions. As I mention in the book, for a man, for example, to call a woman who wants and consents to this treatment a "whore," can be a healthy way (as long as it is by mutual agreement) to obtain pleasure (somewhat sadomasochistic, which at relatively moderate levels is completely natural and healthy), by discharging, thus, a surplus of energy, the containment of which can become unpleasant and even unbearable. For this, I have adjective this pleasure as infractive, and not as rapist.
An excess of energy is a privilege that not everyone achieves, and that can be very productive and creative, if channeled properly. China and Russia are among the countries that best channel such excesses, in moderate and therefore successful ways. Finding and choosing moderate (non-illegal) ways to release excess energy is the intelligent way for individuals and nations to re-establish their internal energy balance and relationships with others.
This does not mean that China and Russia are smarter countries than the United States. The only country that in recent history on this planet has lived the experience of remaining alone in a contest and appropriating the gloves of the opponent is the United States. And it is certain that Russia and China would have acted in the same way, bewildered and bewildering, that the US is doing now, had they had that same experience. No country or party to conflict within an isolated system can stand in balance on its own. By nature, all living beings (and anything else existing in the Universe) need an external influence to keep us in balance. However, this does not prevent the knowledge of the law of balance between opposites from being of use to us to help ourselves when any situation arises in which an imbalance in "our favor" has occurred.
It is therefore important to know how to identify an imbalance. In recent years there has been talk that, due to the growing strengthening of countries such as Russia, China and others (within the BRICS, for example), and the weakening of the United States, a counterweight is being created against the abuses of the American power. Has such a balance already been reached, or at what point will we be able to know that it has already been reached? No, the balance has not been reached. Three very clear signs that there is still a big imbalance in today's world, although it is already very close to being balanced, are the following facts:
1. While the United States has the luxury of sending warships to attack an ally of Russia and China that is very close to these countries and very far from it, without Russia or China openly acknowledging the full extent of their factual opposition to these US attacks, he still dares to announce that he intends to continue with the doctrine of America for the Americans with respect to Cuba, while attacking, and threatening further aggression, illegally, against this country, which is an ally of Russia and China.
2. While Israel has nuclear weapons and is not concealed or punished for it, the United States and Israel do, in various ways, reproach and punish Iran, denying that it has the same right as them to have nuclear weapons.
3. The United States insists on openly sending weapons to Taiwan against China itself, while threatening this country on the sole suspicion that it is sending weapons to Iran to defend itself against the illegal aggressions of the United States and Israel.
These three facts, which indicate a clear geopolitical imbalance, at the same time constitute three counterproductive processes for its manager, who in a very short time will restore the balance on the planet.
The only way in which the United States can overcome its current multiple serious problems and its current decline is by becoming aware that the cause of all this is the imbalance in which it finds itself and that, itself, it must abandon its current path towards forcing an increase in the imbalance (which is totally counterproductive) and take the path of moderation, which is the only one that, truly, will strengthen it. The opposite is only regression and self-destruction.
The recognition of this implies, in particular, undoing many excessive changes made and begun or going back on them, or redirecting them through channels of profit, and undertaking other truly productive paths.
How to get out of the war against Iran
The United States has two ways out of the war it initiated with Israel against Iran. One is to continue with their excesses and those of Israel, as has been done so far, making the situation much worse, and reaching a point where Donald Trump will either be forced to resign from office or be removed from office. It is absolutely certain that this is what is going to happen as we continue down this path, because there is no way for the United States to win this war.
And there is still a way, currently at very high risk of being irretrievably lost soon, for Donald Trump to come out of this war in such a way that he is not seen in the United States or the rest of the world as a loser, but as a benefactor, and that with the appropriate subsequent actions he recovers and does not lose the presidency.
For Donald Trump to regain his popularity within the United States, postwar actions are essential. Without them he will have only managed to get out of this successful war, to continue with the same mistakes and undo what he has achieved in this trance.
For this reason, I have taken the time to expose all the above, because it is necessary that the change be systematic and applied to all cases, on which it will depend whether or not Trump continues in the US presidency.
As is well known, every problem is an opportunity to get off on a better footing than how you got in, and this is no exception, yet.
Before continuing to talk about this, I will make a brief parenthesis to talk about the certain fact that escalating this conflict a little more, militarily, will lead to Donald Trump being totally impossible, whatever he does next, to regain his popularity and continue in the presidency this year.
From the moment the US and Israel started the war against Iran, and to date, the Iranians have always been able to sink any of the largest warships, including aircraft carriers, that the US has deployed there, and even an entire fleet. It has the right missiles for it. And the sinking of any of these vessels would be something from which Trump could in no way recover. Once sunk one of these ships (a destroyer or an aircraft carrier), there would be absolutely nothing with which Donald Trump could stay in the presidency, since his only possible reactions to it would be to escalate the conflict much more, producing greater world problems, or withdraw, without more, declaring himself an absolute loser. None of that would solve anything and such a huge loss would be absolutely unforgivable for Americans.
The Iranians know this well and yet they have not proceeded like this since the beginning of the war, for a very logical and very convenient reason: They planned their reaction in such a way that they had the opportunity to destroy the US military bases in the region from which they were attacked, and to weaken and subdue the countries that host them, as well as Israel and the US.
Since before the beginning of this war, largely for the reasons I already mentioned in my article The disastrous defeat of the United States and Israel in the Middle East, the Iranians knew that although they could send back the US Navy totally defeated, it would have left in the Middle East very unfavorable circumstances, which would not have been possible to change for political and media reasons. They would not have had the opportunity to get everything they have achieved had they destroyed one of those ships from the beginning.
The behavior of Iran, like that of Russia and China, in the military and economic conflicts that these countries are facing with the West, develops with such restraint that their attacks are counterattacks and, although forceful, without excess. The West, to its own misfortune, has not known, of course, how to interpret this as acts of sensible sobriety, which wins in the media sphere and in international politics, but as weaknesses, a very typical error of perception of those who have lost the ground due to arrogance and other excesses.
However, the war has not only reached a point where the aforementioned Iranian objectives have already been achieved, but, amazingly, even the US, for the blockade it is carrying out, has brought some of his navy's ships closer to Iranian shores, so that it is now much more feasible, and much more likely, to sink them. Thus, any aggravated aggression of the United States or Israel will have as a very probable, if not certain, Iranian reaction the irreparable destruction of one of those ships at least, or those necessary for the people of the United States to end the conflict immediately. And then there will be nothing Trump can do to recover from this.
But there is still one way, and only one, in which it is possible to negotiate the end of this conflict in such a way that, depending on whether Trump's subsequent actions, in other cases and in other spheres, are consistent with a sensible way of acting, systematically, there will be a remarkable recovery.
To negotiate with Iran the solution to this conflict, we must take into account its causes and the situation that has given rise to it. Symptomatic or palliative solutions are temporary and, strictly speaking, do not constitute true solutions, but only appearances or simulations that they are. The point is to attack the problem at its roots. To attend merely to the superficial, in any problem, is like trying to cure leprosy with pure ointment. The solution must be etiological, substantive, to last or be definitive.
The problem in the Middle East is too complex to be solved completely right now, in a single negotiation, even beginning to address its causes; but, thus, through an etiological treatment, it is possible to make significant advances, whose effects are not fleeting and, through other changes, a much more lasting peace is achieved.
Before continuing, I must also speak about the decisive difference between "medical" treatments - in all areas of life by extension - superficial and those applied to the root.
Next, I will mention four specific cases of international current affairs that clearly show the total ineffectiveness of applying symptomatic treatment to a conflict and the entire effectiveness of truly resolving it, from its root. Solving a problem completely requires, in addition, that its treatment be integral, systemic, as I show below.
1. During the current conflict in the Middle East, due to the partial blockade of the Strait of Hormuz carried out by Iran, it has been seriously considered that, as a lesson of such adverse effect for almost all countries hostile to Iran in the Persian Gulf, it has been learned that one way to circumvent that obstruction is simply to build pipelines connecting with the Red Sea.
The futility of this attempt at a solution becomes evident if we consider that its construction is very expensive, and very difficult politically, and takes years, while putting it out of service, by means of a missile or a drone, is comparatively very cheap and takes only minutes or hours.
Pipelines, gas pipelines and cables, like bridges, are normally, in wars, among the most vulnerable and principal of the enemy's military objectives. There is very little that can be done to prevent them from being destroyed. Indeed, it would be far less difficult and more economical for Iran to disable an oil pipeline, or a number of these, than to keep the Strait of Hormuz blocked.
2. Reducing illegal migration in the United States has been extremely costly economically (for the expense in the construction of the border wall, surveillance and detection, persecution, deportation and imprisonment, and the reduction in productivity after that labor loss) and in domestic politics (for the numerous and very serious incidents with ICE). However, these problems are really solvable at much lower costs, much faster, in a lasting or definitive and very productive way (for the US), if they are addressed from their origin, to prevent them from reaching that point.
3. In the case of drug trafficking, the distance between the ineffectiveness of efforts or combats and the cost in health, and in all other aspects, by mass drug addiction, is much greater than in the analogous case above. And yet, this serious problem is also solvable at much lower costs, without violence, by contributing to its care from its origin.
4. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed in 2015 between the United States and Iran in order to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons is another clear example of an attempt at a solution that is totally useless in reality, due to not addressing the causes of the problem, but being limited to mechanisms that, however much they are revised, "improved," increased and refined, they will always be useless. Not coming to this knowledge is a consequence of the same lack of empathy for which the vulnerability from which Iran tries to protect itself in the face of an openly genocidal Israel due to that aforementioned imbalance has not been understood, consisting of its possession of nuclear weapons, unique in the region, and the unrestricted support of the United States.
If the United States saw things from Iran's perspective, putting himself in his place, he would understand not only his own position as to his need to protect himself, but also, if you think about it seriously, thoroughly and in detail - as you would have to do in the face of such a disadvantageous prospect -, that there would be no way that by foreign inspections on their territory, however insightful and thorough they were, they prevented him from developing a nuclear weapon.
In this regard, for example, this article says:
The director general of the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Mariano Grossi] considers it unrealistic to prevent the Islamic Republic from obtaining a nuclear bomb.The head of the IAEA pointed out that, although uranium enrichment is complex, it does not require an unattainable level of sophistication. As an example, he recalled that during the lifetime of the Obama-era nuclear deal - the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) - Iran used very basic centrifuges. Instead, in the three or four years following the pact's collapse, Tehran quickly managed to develop much more precise and efficient ultracentrifuges. Grossi warned that, since these machines can be manufactured in small workshops in any city, curbing that Iranian military capacity is now practically impossible.
This information contains a contradiction, because it immediately adds:
Asked how to stop Iran's nuclear program, Grossi opined that "what should be stopped is a nuclear weapons program, since any country can have a nuclear program." According to the expert, this could be achieved through "an inspection regime" that allows "the IAEA to do its job."Grossi on Iran: "You can't completely destroy a country"Abr 20 2026 21:51 GMT
The important thing here is that America can know the truth about this simply by asking these two questions:
1. In what way could we create, from scratch, a nuclear weapon despite inspections such as we intend to perform on Iran to avoid it?
2. Do we have anything that Iran does not have for the scope of this goal?
I think one thing we could answer in relation to the second of these questions is that Iran does possess something that the United States does not: A vital, existential desire to protect oneself, which the US could omit in this imaginary experiment of empathy, and which, for that and only for that, in addition, the answer to the first of these questions could also be neglected or even rigged, and false or at least - dangerously - defective.
Why not subject it, with a prize to whoever achieves it (to be realistic), to a brainstorming of university students (not necessarily at MIT), without mentioning Iran, but, instead, the United States in the hypothetical state of imbalance, threat and vulnerability of environment that the Persian country currently lives?
In any case, if the US decides to try to impose that useless treatment on Iran (again inspections, of any nature), this country will reject it, because, currently, not only is there no reason for it to accept it, but there are, very strong, to reject it, and the same as for its missiles.
However, if we insist on imagining that Iran, for some impossible or incredible reason, could accept that treatment, the problem would be incomparably more serious than at present and that in the whole history of this conflictive relationship, because an American government, like Trump's, for example, that, for any political or other cause or error, presumed or advocated that Iran could not develop a nuclear weapon through such agreed inspections, then the roots of the conflict would remain intact, Iran would develop nuclear weapons, would receive them from an ally or would take refuge in a nuclear umbrella (the latter options being unnecessary, since Iran can even alone do it) before a people and/or an uninformed and unprepared American government, and, possibly, in another serious abuse of the US and/or Israel, Iran would detonate one of them in some city of the North American country. I consider this unlikely, considering that Iran is not inclined to it; but it is indisputable that any nation that is as pressured as Iran has been could come to it, by nature of survival.
Therefore, it is necessary to answer the above questions seriously and carefully.
The only reasonable, viable option leading to a profitable way out of the conflict is to address its root, and this is in the imbalance.
Since, moreover, in this conflict, Iranian confidence, logically, has already fallen to minimums that make its solution more difficult, it is precisely more indispensable that it be attended to from its roots and not at its epidermal level.
Due to the increased erosion in confidence, for its prompt and less costly resolution, it is essential to manage here, in this negotiation, fundamentally solid elements, concrete and significant facts towards balance, carried out immediately before or in its course, and not after, and avoiding promises that sound empty, but legal resolutions for its immediate, firm and continuous execution.
The essential awareness that the end of this war (and the solution to all the evils that afflict the United States) is in a systematically acting with balance, without excesses, includes, of course, Israel, since it is a decisive part in the conflict. Not because it alone succeeds, but because of its unrestricted alliance with the United States.
The only way Donald Trump can emerge from this relatively unscathed conflict is to choose between the United States and Israel. Israel, by itself, is not at present in a position to make any sensible decision in this regard. Therefore, the complete decision can only fall to the United States, without negotiations with this ally, but only with declarations of what has been decided.
Israel has committed a lot of very serious excesses in the Middle East, and will continue to do so as long as the US continues to support it. So it all depends on what Trump chooses about it: the excesses of Israel, which means losing America and, of course, losing himself politically; or the United States, which implies limiting Israel.
For this negotiation, as for any other, it is imperative, as I mentioned before, to understand Iran's position by putting itself in its place, empathically. Without this requirement it is impossible to reach an agreement, when the other party is not in a position to bow before injustices, and seeks only balance.
Something that greatly facilitates for Donald Trump the solution of this conflict in a way that is favored by the Americans and the rest of the world, is that in the United States, as in much of the world, there is already a great repudiation, an irrepressible and undeniable weariness, of the abuses that Israel has been committing against Palestine, among other disproportionately disproportionate aggressions in the region.
Since the only way for the United States and Donald Trump to get out of this conflict is by addressing its causes (attacking its symptoms is making it worse), this form of negotiation implies a recognition of what most of the world and the people of the United States currently want, and with determination, in addition to Iran: a firm, determined, honest and continuous movement towards balance and just moderation, which are sorely lacking in the region. This will restore peace throughout the region, as if by magic, if the US acts really and firmly against Israel's excesses, and avoids its own. This will automatically cause Iran and its allies to lay down their arms.
This requires a genuine understanding of the causes of the problem. For this, I have included background explanations. It would not be possible to solve it, truly, by trying to create a convenient appearance, but only by understanding what is happening.
For this reason, seeking a lasting peace, through a very realistic agreement focused on this end, I suggest starting this negotiation or, better still, preceding it with the recognition before the UN of the Palestinian State, together with that of Israel. Force Israel, by all means, not to attack, and not only to sign agreements, any other country as long as it is not attacked and, if the need arises, not to do so disproportionately, at all costs to Netanyahu.
I suggest that in the full and sincere awareness of the need for a balance in the region so that there can be lasting and solid peace among all countries, the United States, with neutrality, dialogue with Iran regarding such a need and ask for its views and proposals to negotiate.
Inducing Iran not to develop nuclear weapons is only going to happen, quite simply, if that Iranian nuclear need to defend itself is suppressed, and since Israel's excesses are what is fueling that need, suppressing these abuses will at the same time suppress such an Iranian project.
The promise of an Iran not threatened with hostile acts (nor verbally) in terms of not developing nuclear weapons is incomparably more valuable, more solid and reliable than any reaction, even of favorable appearance, of an Iranian people threatened and concerned for their security.
For this negotiation to be successful, it is essential not to try in any way to reach an agreement that implies any increase in the existing imbalance.
Keep in mind that what I propose here is not to completely eliminate the imbalance (although this would be ideal). A balance in the region would mean that Israel would cease to have nuclear weapons. If the United States is not going to demand this from Israel, but only to put a stop to its abuses (a grave latent nuclear threat persists), it would not be acceptable for Iran to surrender its uranium.
The valuable - for the entire Middle East and for the world - outcome of this war has a cost that will be reflected in the toll that Iran will take on the Strait of Hormuz.
This way of negotiating will result in these benefits for Donald Trump:
1. He will emerge unscathed from this war and, in a way, victorious, because he will have achieved the fundamental purpose and, finally, in the best possible way: the most reliable promise achieved so far that Iran will not have nuclear weapons.
2. The way he will have achieved it will attract sympathy from much of the world.
3. Its popularity will improve considerably in the United States.
4.If he manages to maintain congruence and systematicity with this understanding of the problem and its movement towards equilibrium and, therefore, sustains a moderation towards the Persian country, it will do the same towards him during the postwar period.
5. These actions will contribute significantly to the remarkable progress of the United States, of which I will speak in detail below.
In a second part of this article, I will talk about how to avoid the fracturing of the United States, how to solve the problems of migration and drug trafficking to the United States and how to compete successfully with China.
Backup of this publication: