Latest Attack on Pezeshkian: What's Behind It? | We Must Back Down...
Reformists Challenge Pezeshkian's Insight-Driven View on Talks with the US, Born of War and Heavy Losses, with a Capitulationist Formula!
The reformers challenged the doctors' view of negotiating with the United States, which was obtained with insight after the war and a lot of damage, with a capitulationist version!
According to Heshmehari Online, Javan wrote: On the same day that the president clearly said, "The Americans attacked us three times after negotiations" and before that, in the meeting with Pashinyan, "negotiations with an enemy that terrorizes, sanctions, and threatens is meaningless" and in the meeting with Putin, "America attacked us every time during negotiations", the reformists used this view, which was obtained with insight after war and great damage, with a surrenderist version. Challenged!
The problem is that no one in the country is looking for a war for the sake of war. This has been explained many times. But the problem of reformers is not negotiation and dialogue. Their problem is submission to the West. This is not what they said today or yesterday. This is an idea they are not willing to change, even though they accuse others of being ideologues. Hossein Marashi from the Party of Agents and the owner of several large economic holdings cited Shah Abbas as an example and gave an interpretation of him and concluded that we should also retreat: "Shah Abbas prioritized instead of fighting with all enemies at the same time, and to focus on the eastern front, he first made a ceasefire with the Ottomans and even retreated as far as Tabriz"! Someone like Ahmad Zaidabadi, who wrote that he was constantly in bed during the first days of the 40-day war and prayed for the end of the war, accused the country's authorities of acting like a turtle in responding to America's proposals and wrote: "If America's response was even in cuneiform, the code would have been discovered a hundred times by now!" What is this answer that after several weeks is still "under review" and still not summarized? It would have been a turtle, it would have reached its destination by now!"
Although the country has not closed the path of negotiation and neither doctors nor others are looking for war, does Zeidabadi not understand the logic of doctors who say that we cannot trust someone who has attacked three times during negotiations, or does he have some kind of innate ignorance along with Marashi and dozens of other reformist writers?! The last time America attacked a meeting of military and security officials that was to review the response to America's proposal and made everyone testify, but people like these corbatans are again saying to hold a meeting for a faster response to America. In their logic, America is never to blame. It is our fault that we do not surrender so that the sleep in their bed is free from the worries of war.
From Marashi's version of surrender to Zeidabadi's taunting of the negotiation process, why is the government being pressured from within the political stream close to it instead of helping to stabilize the achievements of Maidan?
Hossein Marashi, the Secretary General of the Construction Agents Party with his legendary and rentier wealth, appears in the stands more than any other political and economic activist these days, and he is worried about the people and their economic livelihood! Of course, he does not hesitate to lie to prove his claims. Not long ago, according to Chinese officials, the visit of Iran's special representative was conditional on the four conditions of opening the strait by Iran, not receiving any tolls, ending its differences with Saudi Arabia and ending its differences with the United States, a claim that the office of the special representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran on China affairs denied very soon.
The recent statements of Marashi and Ahmad Zeidabadi, a reformist political activist, are two examples of the criticisms that are being raised these days from within the political movement close to the government of Masoud Mezikian. Criticisms that have come to the stage, one by prescribing extensive retreats and rather surrender to prevent the next possible war, and the other by mocking the process of examining the American proposal. The common denominator of these positions should be sought in the question of whether, in the current situation, the priority of politics should be strengthening Iran's bargaining power and consolidating its achievements in the field, or highlighting its weaknesses and pressuring the government to speed up the path of diplomacy?
In statements addressed to the President, Speaker of the Parliament, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and IRGC Commanders, Hossein Marashi emphasized that no risk should be accepted and any necessary tactical retreat should be taken to prevent a possible third war. He also considered the preservation of Iran more important than enrichment and nuclear achievements, and by referring to inflation and economic pressure, he emphasized the necessity of scoring the Islamic Republic.
On the surface, Marashi's words are expressed with the concern of preserving the country and reducing the pressure on the people, but the main issue is the conclusion that is drawn from these preparations. Does the economic pressure and the possibility of war in itself mean the necessity of retreat and surrender? In order to preserve Iran, should the components of power be abandoned, or should these same components be used to prevent the repetition of aggression and reach a balanced agreement? Concern for people's livelihood is necessary, but turning this concern into an argument for unilateral withdrawal and giving concessions to the enemy is not only not a surefire strategy to prevent war, but it can send the message to the other side that increasing pressure will eventually force Iran to give more concessions (read surrender). In such a situation, the question to Marashi is that if the so-called tactical withdrawals he wants are not accompanied by a valid guarantee and reciprocal privilege, what will prevent the repetition of America's excesses? However, the bitter experience of the JCPOA is in front of him.
A fact that is ignored
While speaking about the necessity of retreating to save Iran, Marashi says that such a formulation presents a very dark picture of the country's situation; An image in which the economic pressure appears to be so decisive as if Iran is faced with an inevitable choice between surrender and losing the country. This view pushes Iran's defense, geopolitical and social capacities to the sidelines and neglects a basic fact: national security is not ensured by giving concessions to the enemy.
This is despite the fact that today, according to friends and enemies, Iran is the absolute winner in the field of the war imposed by America and the Zionist regime, and what should be the concern of political activists now is not retreat and surrender, but the consolidation of this field power at the negotiating table. Therefore, in evaluating the two recent wars imposed by America and the Zionist regime against Iran, what is important is to examine the enemy's declared and operational goals, the extent of their realization and the costs incurred by Iran's resistance. If the enemy has failed to achieve his goals, this fact must be taken into account in diplomatic calculations.
Therefore, Iran's problem today is not just ending the conflict, but how to consolidate the achievements of the field at the negotiating table and prevent the repetition of aggression. Negotiation is neither betrayal nor a sign of weakness by itself; In the same way, every retreat is not necessarily a plan. The main criterion is the national interest, the proportionality of the points, the existence of valid guarantees and the long-term consequences of the decisions. Diplomacy should take advantage of the power of the field to increase the bargaining power, rather than placing the necessity of handing over the arms of authority as the only way to save the country before the start or end of negotiations.
Demanding transparency or weakening the negotiation position?
On the other hand, Ahmed Zeidabadi mocked the long process of examining America's answer with a sarcastic tone and wrote that if the answer was in cuneiform, it should have been deciphered many times by now. This criticism, on the surface, is aimed at the slowness of the diplomatic process, a process that the medical government is responsible for promoting. It is obvious that the public opinion has the right to ask for an explanation about the negotiation process, the reasons for the delay and its prospects. But turning this demand into sarcasm and ridicule, without knowing the details of the negotiations and the complexities of decision-making, does not necessarily help clarify the reality. Speed is not the only measure of success in diplomacy. The content of the agreement, mutual guarantees and protection of national interests are also important. In addition to Marashi's version of capitulation, the question about Zeidabadi's position is also raised whether, in the conditions of external pressure, such literature helps to strengthen the position of Iranian negotiators or can lead to intensifying the atmosphere of mistrust and inducing confusion inside?
A component that should not be a victim of political differences
In addition to the defense capability of the armed forces, the continuous presence of people in the streets for more than 220 nights has been a manifestation of social capacity and solidarity as a deterrent and determining factor against foreign threats. Such a presence can have a deterrent effect on the enemy's calculations; Because evaluating the costs of aggression is not only limited to military power and the resilience of the society is also important in it. Now the enemies have realized that in order to resume conflicts, similar to what happened in 1404, there must be a split in the ranks of the people. If the gains on the ground are to translate into lasting peace, the way to do it is not to undermine Iran's negotiating position with hasty versions of withdrawal. The way is to consolidate the achievements, fiercely resist against the extravagant demands of the enemy and demand valid guarantees and maintain national unity against foreign pressure.
It seems that Marashi and people aligned with him are more than anything seeking to reflect a thinking in Iran whose governance model is based on surrender and compromise to save themselves or protect group interests. The same ones that Imam Shahid had warned about, who talk about peace, compromise and surrender out of cowardice.