US-Iran tensions persist despite ceasefire talks: systemic failures in diplomacy, sanctions, and geopolitical power structures exposed by AP-NORC poll
Original framing: “Trump approval on Iran low even as tentative deal to end fighting emerged, new AP-NORC poll finds - AP News” — AP News (via Google News)
The US-Iran relationship is a microcosm of 20th-century imperialism, from the 1953 CIA-backed coup against Mossadegh to the 1979 hostage crisis and the 2003 Iraq War, which destabilized the region and empowered hardliners in Tehran. The JCPOA’s collapse under Trump revealed how US foreign policy oscillates between engagement and coercion based on domestic political cycles, not strategic consistency. Historical parallels include the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, where US support for Saddam Hussein prolonged a devastating conflict, and the 1990s sanctions on Iraq, which killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.
The AP-NORC poll’s focus on Trump’s approval ratings is a symptom of a deeper systemic failure: the US’s inability to engage in diplomacy that transcends its own imperial reflexes.
Decades of sanctions, regime-change operations, and militarized diplomacy have created a feedback loop where each 'tentative deal' collapses under the weight of historical grievances and structural distrust. The marginalized voices—Iranian women, Kurdish activists, Iraqi civilians—are the canaries in this coal mine, their suffering normalized as collateral damage in a game of geopolitical chess. Yet, as the JCPOA’s initial success showed, inclusive, multilateral negotiations can break this cycle, provided they are shielded from the whims of partisan politics. The solution pathways must therefore prioritize structural reforms: lifting sanctions, embedding diplomacy in regional architectures, and centering the wisdom of those most affected by war. The trickster’s laughter reminds us that the 'low approval' narrative is a distraction—what’s needed is not a popularity contest, but a reckoning with the costs of empire.