The "Spear" and "Shield" of US-Iran Negotiations: Will Iran Abandon the Arc of Resistance?

Recently, the US and Iran held talks in Oman and Islamabad, ostensibly about nuclear issues, but in fact hiding a more critical underlying thread—the Arc of Resistance.

First, let's talk about compensation. Iran demands reparations from five countries: Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and Jordan, but not Kuwait. Some are curious, so they looked into it: during Iran's retaliatory bombings, Kuwait was hit the hardest. When both sides did the math, it roughly offset each other, which is quite interesting.

Back to the negotiations. Currently, the disclosed information shows that there is actually some room for agreement on nuclear issues:

Iran has made concessions: agreeing to destroy all 60% enriched uranium and accepting inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Disagreements lie in the timeline: the US demands freezing uranium enrichment for 20 years, while Iran proposes 5 years. This isn't a fundamental issue and can be negotiated—perhaps each side could step back a bit, say, to 10 years?

Sanctions lifting: the US agrees to unfreeze $6 billion in assets, while Iran demands $27 billion. The US wants phased, reversible measures, whereas Iran wants full relief.

These numbers are negotiable. The real difficulty lies in two issues:

First is the Strait of Hormuz. Iran insists it has sovereignty and can charge tolls; the US disagrees. Currently, no acceptable compromise has been seen from either side. If negotiations fail, there’s a risk of renewed conflict.

Second is the Arc of Resistance—that's the core of Trump’s "hidden thread."

Comparing Obama’s agreement with Trump’s demands makes this clear:

Obama’s deal: Iran could only retain uranium enriched below 3.67%, reduce 98% of its uranium stockpile, and accept strict inspections. These guarantees prevented Iran from developing nuclear weapons but did not address the Arc of Resistance.

Trump’s demands: beyond more comprehensive denuclearization (20-year freeze), Iran is also not allowed to expand military influence outside its borders—meaning it must cease supporting Hezbollah, Houthi forces, and other Shia militias.

Why is this so important? Because for Iran:

Nuclear weapons are the "shield": mainly for deterrence, protecting the homeland from attack.

The Arc of Resistance is the "spear": an offensive tool to expand influence, encircle Israel and Gulf monarchies, and even overthrow other countries.

Since successfully defending Assad in 2011, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon have become interconnected, with proxies in Yemen, Bahrain, and inside Israel. This web tightly surrounds Israel and Saudi Arabia—naturally, they want Iran to back off.

But here’s the problem: the Middle East is inherently a game of "mutual interference." In Syria, behind Al-Julani are Turkey; behind the Kurds is the US; behind the Druze is Israel; and Assad was backed by Russia and Iran... Since everyone is meddling, why shouldn’t Iran interfere?

Conversely, since Iran is interfering in others’ affairs, why shouldn’t the US interfere in Iran?

The reality is that Iran is currently quite weak and will likely have to compromise. The most probable outcomes are:

Short-term: a ceasefire can be expected, such as temporarily reducing support to the Houthi forces.

Long-term: it depends on Iran’s deepest desire—whether they want to focus on their own well-being or dominate the Middle East.

From the market reaction (ETH surged 8%, Japan, South Korea, and A-shares opening sharply higher), funds are already pricing in a "détente" optimism. The second round of talks (possibly in Islamabad or Geneva, on the 17th-19th) is crucial. If successful, everyone benefits; if it collapses, the market could drop back to late March levels.

Overall, the bottom of the Iran conflict seems to have been reached—neither side wants war. Now, it depends on whether clever minds can come up with a compromise on the Strait of Hormuz and how much Iran is willing to concede on the Arc of Resistance.

Short-term optimism, long-term strategic game. A win-win scenario is also possible.