Iran cannot simply abandon Hezbollah without signaling weakness
En un momento en que los costos domésticos y el aislamiento diplomático pesan sobre Washington, y en que Teherán puede reclamar victorias estratégicas sin seguir combatiendo, Donald Trump ha declarado que la guerra se acerca a su fin. El analista Mario Saavedra identifica incentivos genuinos a ambos lados para retirarse de lo que llama esta 'locura', aunque advierte que la lógica económica rara vez basta cuando hay compromisos ideológicos de por medio. El destino de Hezbollah —organización que Irán no puede abandonar sin señalar debilidad— podría ser el nudo que impida que una paz aparentemente lógica se convierta en una paz real.
- Trump declaró en Fox News que la guerra está a punto de terminar, una afirmación que eleva las expectativas pero que aún no encuentra respaldo en acuerdos concretos.
- Los precios de la gasolina y la carne en Estados Unidos alcanzan niveles que erosionan el apoyo popular, convirtiendo la prolongación del conflicto en un riesgo político directo para Trump.
- Irán controla el Estrecho de Ormuz y ha sobrevivido como régimen, lo que le permite negociar desde una posición de fuerza relativa —pero esa misma posición eleva el precio de sus concesiones.
- Lo que Trump ofrece sobre la mesa es, según el análisis, menos generoso que el acuerdo nuclear de Obama de 2015, y sin embargo podría ser suficiente —si no fuera por Hezbollah.
- Europa presiona al Líbano, Israel bombardea su territorio, y Trump parece dispuesto a frenar a Israel; pero Irán difícilmente sacrificará a su principal proxy regional sin exigir algo que nadie está dispuesto a dar.
Donald Trump anunció en Fox News que la guerra está cerca de su fin, una declaración que plantea una pregunta incómoda: ¿puede un conflicto detenerse simplemente porque un presidente así lo declara? El analista internacional Mario Saavedra, escribiendo para El Periódico, cree que hay razones reales para el optimismo, aunque no incondicionales.
Para Estados Unidos, el argumento es doméstico y urgente. Los precios del combustible suben, la carne alcanza récords históricos, y la política exterior de Trump ha conseguido alienar a casi todos sus aliados. Continuar una guerra en ese contexto tiene un costo político que Trump no puede ignorar. Para Irán, la lógica es distinta pero igualmente poderosa: la generación que hoy gobierna vivió ocho años de guerra contra Irak y conoce bien sus consecuencias. Además, ya han obtenido algo concreto —el control del Estrecho de Ormuz y la supervivencia del régimen— lo que les permite retirarse reclamando victoria.
Lo que Trump ofrece, según Saavedra, es objetivamente aceptable para Irán: la economía cuadra, la geopolítica también. Paradójicamente, es menos de lo que Obama negoció en 2015 —el mismo acuerdo que Trump desmanteló en 2018— y aun así podría funcionar. Pero hay un obstáculo que ninguna lógica económica puede resolver por sí sola: Hezbollah.
Europa presiona al Líbano para que acepte la paz. Israel bombardea su territorio sin pausa. Trump parece dispuesto a frenar a Israel si sus aliados europeos lo exigen. Sin embargo, Irán no puede abandonar a Hezbollah —la organización que ha sostenido durante décadas— sin enviar una señal de debilidad a toda la región. El propio gobierno libanés querría ver a Hezbollah contenido, pero el compromiso de Teherán con el grupo va más allá de cualquier cálculo diplomático.
Saavedra concluye que las piezas se están moviendo hacia un acuerdo, pero que el estatus final de Hezbollah —si sobrevive, si se desarma, si permanece como fuerza política— puede ser la bisagra sobre la que gire todo. Si Irán insiste en protegerlo y Estados Unidos insiste en su eliminación, toda la lógica económica del mundo podría no ser suficiente para cerrar la brecha.
Donald Trump announced on Fox News that the war is nearing its end, a declaration that could mark a turning point in a conflict that ignited on February 28th. But the question hanging over such pronouncements is whether a war can simply stop when a president says it should—and whether the incentives actually align for that to happen.
International analyst Mario Saavedra, writing for El Periódico, sees genuine reason for optimism. Both sides, he argues, have concrete reasons to step back from what he calls this "madness." For the United States, the calculus is rooted in domestic economics. Gasoline prices are climbing, and meat prices have hit record highs—the kind of everyday costs that shape how Americans feel about their government. Trump's political survival depends partly on these numbers. Beyond that, his foreign policy has managed to alienate nearly everyone. When you're burning bridges across the globe, the cost of continuing a war becomes harder to justify at home.
Iran's position is more complex but no less constrained. The current generation in power fought an eight-year war against Iraq; they are not naive about the costs of prolonged conflict. Yet they have gained something substantial from this moment: control over the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most critical chokepoints for oil shipments, and the survival of their regime itself. From Iran's perspective, they can claim victory now and walk away. The question is whether they will demand more before they do.
Here is where the analysis becomes delicate. Trump is reportedly offering Iran terms that fall short of what the Obama administration negotiated in 2015—the nuclear deal that Trump himself dismantled in 2018. By any objective measure, what Trump is putting on the table is acceptable to Iran. The economics work. The geopolitics work. Both sides have reasons to declare victory and move on.
But there is one obstacle that may prove insurmountable: Hezbollah. Lebanon is under intense pressure from Europe to accept peace. Israel has been bombing Lebanese territory relentlessly. Trump appears willing to pressure Israel to stop, partly because European allies are demanding it. Yet Iran cannot simply abandon Hezbollah, the militant organization it has supported for decades. To do so would be to betray a crucial proxy and signal weakness to other regional actors. The Lebanese government itself wants Hezbollah constrained, but Iran's commitment to the group runs deeper than any diplomatic calculation.
Saavedra's analysis suggests that the pieces are moving into place for a settlement. The incentives are real. The economic pressures are mounting. The diplomatic channels are opening. But Hezbollah's status—whether it survives, whether it disarms, whether it remains a force in Lebanese politics—may be the hinge on which everything turns. If Iran insists on protecting Hezbollah and the United States insists on its removal, then all the economic logic in the world may not be enough to close the gap.
Notable Quotes
I see incentives for both sides to stop this madness— Mario Saavedra, international analyst
Trump is angering absolutely everyone in the world— Mario Saavedra
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would Trump's domestic problems actually push him toward ending this war rather than, say, using it as a distraction?
Because inflation and high prices are the one thing that directly affects how voters feel about their government every single day. A war doesn't change whether meat costs too much. It might even make it worse.
So Iran has genuinely won something here, in Saavedra's reading?
Yes. They control the Strait of Hormuz now—that's leverage they didn't have before. Their regime is still standing. By any measure, they can claim they didn't lose. That's a powerful position to negotiate from.
But then why would they be "very tough" in negotiations, as Saavedra says?
Because they know they have leverage. They're not desperate. They can afford to demand more than what Trump is offering, even if what he's offering is technically acceptable.
And Hezbollah is the real problem?
It's the thing neither side can easily give up. Iran can't abandon it without looking weak to every other group it supports. America can't leave it standing without looking weak to Israel. It's the knot that won't untie.
So we're back to stalemate?
Not necessarily. But the path to peace runs through Hezbollah, not around it. That's the conversation that actually matters.