In the latest segment of the geopolitical soap opera pitting the bald eagle against the Shiite crescent moon, Vice President J.D. Vance appeared before the cameras of Fox News—that media couch where the Empire goes to psychoanalyze itself without fear of hearing an uncomfortable diagnosis—to talk about "fruitful negotiations" and the fulfillment of objectives.

If there's one thing American foreign policy needs right now, it's a forensic expert who speaks plainly and isn't afraid to get their Armani suit dirty with the sand of the Middle East.

What objectives are we talking about exactly? Excuse my insolence, Mr. Vice President, but let's get our terms straight. Were the strategic objectives perhaps "invade, create chaos, and withdraw without having altered the balance of power on the ground in the slightest, but ensuring that Iran's ballistic missiles remain as intact as the morale of the Revolutionary Guard"? If that was the operational manual, allow me to congratulate you: Mission Accomplished. Again. Just like on that iconic deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003, but this time with more sand in your boots, less Hollywood glamour, and zero structural changes.

Or was the primary objective to empirically demonstrate that an F-35—whose unit cost is equivalent to the Gross Domestic Product of a medium-sized Caribbean island—is functionally useless for winning an asymmetric war against adversaries operating hardware store drones? If that was the Pentagon's doctoral thesis, congratulations: they've proven it with flying colors, shipping costs included.

Why don't they state this with crystal clarity? Herein lies the core of the matter. Clarity is the natural enemy of hegemony. Because if the State Department were to issue a statement with the transparency that taxpayers demand, the text would have to read as follows:

"American citizens: We have invested trillions of your tax dollars—the money you thought would go to healthcare or bridge repairs—in vaporizing sand dunes and adobe structures. The net result is that the same Shiite militias that patrolled the area before our arrival are still patrolling now, but with an accelerated master's degree in AEGIS radar evasion and a refined anti-American grudge. Incidentally, we have enabled Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen to perfect their aim with $500 drones that can now approach dangerously close to our $2 billion destroyers. We have strategically strengthened the Axis of Resistance while the military-industrial complex rubs its hands together at the boardroom. God bless Raytheon and Lockheed Martin."

They don't say it outright because the naked truth is scarier than an Iranian drone flying over the Gulf. They prefer the worn-out euphemism: "We achieved our objectives," which in plain language, without diplomatic flourishes, translates to: "We realized that a tactical beating was imminent if we stayed one more minute, so we opted for a timely withdrawal, and now we'll pretend that this outcome was the master plan from the very beginning."

On the other hand, what was the final cost of this operation? This answer, Mr. Vance, depends on which accounting department you consult. If we ask the CEO of Lockheed Martin: The final cost was simply a splendid fiscal quarter. Shareholders toast with champagne. If we ask a retired Marine lying in the Virginia VA Medical Center, staring at the stump of his leg: The cost was far too high, incalculable on any Excel spreadsheet. If we ask the college student who can't afford tuition but watches as a $40,000 JDAM bomb reduces a mud-brick observation post to rubble: The cost is laughably obscene. A macabre joke of fiscal bad taste. And if we ask cold, calculating Geopolitics: The cost was the definitive implosion of the myth of American military invincibility in the West Asian theater of operations.

Finally, what exactly did the United States gain from this war? After the smoke from the last Tomahawk missile and the last evasive press conference, the balance of losses and gains yields three jewels in the imperial crown: First, high-level work experience for irregular fighters. The Yemeni terrorists (as Central Command likes to call them) They now possess a postgraduate degree in asymmetric warfare engineering. They know how to evade AEGIS defense systems with a device that is, for all intents and purposes, a surfboard with a lawnmower engine and an attached explosive. Second, a slightly larger national debt. A classic that never fails in the imperial repertoire. And third and finally, the certainty that J.D. Vance can utter the phrase "fruitful negotiations" without a single facial muscle twitching. That capacity for cognitive dissociation to sell a humiliating withdrawal as a diplomatic triumph is, certainly, an intangible asset that is priceless in the political marketplace.

Lastly, inevitable, you are absolutely right, Mr. Vance, although perhaps not in the way you intended. When the Empire finds itself in the position of sending its Vice President to Fox News—that media confessional where only the already convinced go—to sell a withdrawal under the euphemism of "a job well done," we are no longer talking about strategy. We're talking about pantomime.

The Empire isn't just perpetrating the biggest farce in its recent history; it's doing so on delay, during prime time, and, to make matters worse, with Farsi subtitles so no detail is missed. And the most serious issue for the Pentagon strategists is that even the humblest camel herder with a satellite phone and Telegram connection has fully grasped it.

End of quote.

Translated by Amilkal Labañino / CubaSí Translation Staff