April 12, 2026: Islamabad, Pakistan, JD Vance announces to the world that "the United States has not reached an agreement with Iran" because "there is no promise from Iran to definitively abandon nuclear weapons."
According to Tehran's version of events, on the contrary, "the negotiations (failed) due to the US's unreasonable demands." Will the truth lie somewhere in between? Who knows.
All things considered, however you frame the whole affair, for Donald Trump, the conflict in Iran would appear to be a rather problematic stalemate. Despite the proclamations, there's no regime change , and enriched uranium, to everyone's credit (so to speak), is still under Tehran's full control. So much so that Iran, as things currently stand, would appear to have a strategic and bargaining advantage over the United States. It resisted the attack, thereby paradoxically acquiring the negotiating power to demand, and perhaps ultimately obtain, some form of compensation for the damage caused by the conflict. This latter circumstance, if actually achieved, could compromise not only Donald Trump's political future, but also and above all the post-war management of the Strait of Hormuz, configuring itself as a truly definitive checkmate to the direct detriment of the Tycoon, who, following the negotiations, appears to have announced on Truth, according to press reports, an immediate naval blockade. This also has an indirect, or rather, more correctly, physiological, consequent, automatic, detriment to the performance of the markets and the global economy, opening the doors to an energy crisis, and not only that, which is difficult to sustain.
The general geopolitical context is characterised by an unprecedented dimension of a "West" in the process of being requalified, if it still exists in the terms in which it was previously known and conceived, within which Donald Trump's United States of America would appear to have lost, or almost lost, its role as guarantor.
The international community, as a whole, appears to be forced to reprogram itself in light of ongoing conflicts and the emerging new world order, which cannot yield to the law of the strongest, but rather must reestablish lost balances. Within this new, reconfigured system, it would appear inadmissible to adopt mixed positions, even on the part of individual governments, even when considered collectively. Instead, they should express a clear opinion on Donald Trump's actions.
The war continues, and Washington, for its part, finds itself stuck in a nearly hopeless bind, thanks to the actions of its President and his "penultimatums" that some might call bordering on credibility. The question of all questions today might be this: can the United States, under Donald Trump's presidency, still consider itself a reliable ally? Is it inconsistent or wise to argue that Italy should continue to advocate for maintaining strong ties with the United States, or rather, with Donald Trump's United States? As things stand, governments, including the Italian one, should distance themselves from any situation that calls into question the established international order and its rules and work assiduously to reestablish it. Likewise, individual member states and the European Union as a whole should take action to explore sustainable economic alternatives, diversifying markets beyond any presuppositions, and responding with diplomatic actions that impact America's shifting positions.
Giuseppina Di Salvatore – Lawyer, Nuoro