How Serious Is the Possibility of a Nuclear Attack on Iran?

A lawmaker said: In reality, the structure of the system cannot be toppled by military strikes alone. A serious shift becomes conceivable only when people take to the streets. Under current conditions, I do not expect Iran and the US to reach an understanding, nor do I expect tensions to rise beyond their current level.

The relations between Tehran and Washington have once again reached a point where there are signs of the continuation of communication paths and the complexity of the political and diplomatic environment has increased. In the latest development, a message from America has reached Iran and Tehran is now investigating it; The news which, along with the recent statements of Donald Trump and the increase in tensions, has once again raised questions about the fate of the relations between the two countries and the current war.

In such an environment, the mere exchange of messages cannot be considered as the two sides approaching an agreement or even reducing the differences. What is important is the content of the messages, Tehran's response and the will of the parties to overcome a situation that is still accompanied by mistrust and ambiguity. In the meantime, Tehran must decide about the received message; A decision that can be effective in drawing the path of the coming days.

In this regard, we talked with Ahmed Bakhshaish Ardestani, a member of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of the Islamic Council, about the recent message of the United States, the positions of both sides, and the prospects of Tehran-Washington relations.

Iran agreed with the provisions of the 14-point memorandum, but America did not adhere to it/ the fear of "America's grandeur" disappeared after the war

A member of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of the Islamic Council, said about the visit of the Iranian delegation to the United States and the objectives of the trip: "The Iranian delegation traveled to the United States to negotiate and communicate seven conditions." Although the appearance of the matter was the notification of the terms, but in the inside, the issue of negotiation was discussed and the main focus of it was to return to the same 14-clause memorandum of Islamabad."

He added: "Iran agreed with the provisions of the 14-point memorandum, because the United States had given these concessions to Iran on paper, but then realized that it had given many concessions to Iran." On the other hand, the Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, pressured the United States not to allow Iran to achieve significant growth after the war and become an important military pole in the region.

This member of the National Security Committee of the Majlis continued: "For this reason, the Americans refused to return to the Islamabad Memorandum. This was not their real intention from the beginning; Although they had agreed to this understanding on paper, they did not adhere to it in practice.

Bakhshaish Ardestani, referring to the change in Iranian commanders' view of America's military power after the war, said: "After these events, Iranian commanders' courage and self-confidence increased. At the beginning of the war, especially during the 12-day war and the 40-day war, as well as on the sidelines of the 13-day war, there was a kind of view based on the grandeur of America in the minds of Iranians. "Iran saw America as a great power and it was thought that this country has a very high military power."

Referring to some analyzes in the past, he said: "This idea was even raised among some analysts, including Mr. Zarif, that if the United States wanted to, it could destroy all of Iran's weapons by pressing a button." There was such an idea in the minds of Iranians and military commanders, but when the war happened, this fear disappeared to a large extent and Iran's plans became stronger.

This member of parliament emphasized that after these developments, Iran's view of the military power of America and Israel has changed and it no longer attaches importance and importance to the military power of these two countries as in the past.

Ahmad Bakshish Ardestani, a member of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of the Islamic Council, said about the reasons for the continued threats of America and Israel against Iran: "One of the reasons for these threats was the positions that Iran adopted against possible attacks. For example, it was announced that if the US targets Iran's nuclear facilities, including Mount Ghazala, Iran will also attack the Dimona facility with missiles. This position was raised on the basis that if a bomb explodes in Iran, it is possible to retaliate and target Dimona facilities in Israel. Earlier, rockets were fired towards that area and according to him, the command rooms there were almost hit."

He added: "Since then, America has moved more towards psychological and economic warfare. By increasing the cost of living and making people's meals more expensive, it tries to increase public dissatisfaction, put the people against the government, and widen the gap between the society and the government.

Emphasizing the role of the people in war situations, this member of parliament continued: "As long as the people of Iran are engaged in war, they will not leave behind the system; Because in the current situation, they do not see the departure of the regime as different from the departure of Iran."

Referring to the historical background of the national identity of Iranians, Bakshaish Ardestani said: "Throughout history, even during the Arab invasion of Iran during the Sassanid period, Iranians considered themselves to be the supporter of their land. In my opinion, the Sasanians failed because of their weakness in bearing the conditions and facing the developments of that period. Shahid Motahari puts forward the view that Iranians welcomed Islam before accepting it, but this statement that Iranians accepted Islam simply because of their interest in Islam is, in my opinion, an unscientific statement; Because from the beginning, Iranians considered it important to defend their homeland, preserve their national identity and authenticity.

He further pointed to social reactions during crises and said: "For example, during the Corona, flood and earthquake, Iranian identity emerges and people rush to help and support each other with a sense of solidarity. However, when crises such as wars or earthquakes are passed, people again express their dissatisfaction with the government in different ways.

Ahmed Bakhshaish Ardestani, a member of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of the Islamic Council, said, referring to the efforts of America and Israel to increase internal discontent in Iran: "It is a historical fact that in times of crisis, the national identity of Iranians is strengthened; However, in the current situation, it seems that Trump and Israel are seeking to create internal polarizations and weaken people's livelihoods to increase the distance between society and the regime.

He added: "The goal is to bring dissatisfaction to the point where people come to the streets in the form of trade union, student protests or demands related to livelihood, wages and shortages. "From my point of view, this is one of the areas that America and Israel can count on to put pressure on Iran."

Referring to the upcoming elections in Israel, this member of the parliament's national security committee said: "One of the factors that should be considered in the current calculations is the Israeli elections, which I think will be held around November 7th. Israel does not mind attacking Iran and Iran taking countermeasures in response to this attack. In such a situation, Netanyahu can claim that he is the only person capable of securing Israel's security by citing conflicts and insecurities and use this space to influence the elections by emphasizing that Iran is the country's biggest enemy.

Bakshaish Ardestani continued: "On the other hand, the American elections will be held about a week after the Israeli elections. If at that point the conflict spreads and Iran attacks oil ships, bases, refineries or energy infrastructure, the price of diesel and fuel in the United States may increase and this issue will end up at Trump's expense. Of course, I don't think that Iran will go towards such an action; Because both sides are tired of continuing the war.

Referring to the continuation of military threats against Iran, he said: "Despite the fatigue of both sides from the war, the threats continue and the possibility of a new incident cannot be completely ruled out. America may think of short-term but severe attacks against Iran; Similar to what he did in the 12-day war.

In the end, this member of parliament noted: "In my opinion, America does not have an unlimited capacity to harm Iran compared to what happened in the 12-day and 40-day wars; However, in possible attacks, it may kill commanders and high levels of leadership."

The structure of the system is not destroyed by military attacks alone

Ahmed Bakshaish Ardestani, a member of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of the Islamic Council, said, referring to the possibility of changes in Iran's political and security conditions: "In fact, the structure of the system will not fall by military attacks alone; "Rather, the possibility of a serious change in this field is raised when people come to the streets."

He added: "In the current situation, I don't think that Iran and America will reach an understanding or the tensions will go beyond the current level. However, both sides continue to play their media game against each other and try to influence the other side in this way."

Ahmed Bakhshish Ardestani, a member of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of the Islamic Council, said in response to a question about the possibility of Israel's nuclear attack on Iran: "I consider the possibility of Israel using nuclear weapons to be low in the current situation. If Israel had not participated in the 12-day, 40-day, and 13-day wars, perhaps it could be said that this regime seeks to create a Middle East free of nuclear weapons, in which only it has such weapons and thus increases its power; But Israel attacked Iran and targeted the Fordow facilities as well."

He added: "Given the messages that Iran has sent about retaliating against a possible attack on its nuclear facilities, including the Dimona facility, I do not think that Israel has the desire to use a nuclear bomb at this time. Of course, this evaluation is based on a rational analysis of the current situation, and the possibility of different decisions in critical situations cannot be completely ruled out. If the other side reaches serious deadlocks, it may even consider using nuclear weapons; However, in the current situation, I do not consider such a decision likely."

Referring to some of Donald Trump's statements about Iran, this member of the Parliament's National Security Committee continued: "Although sometimes there are signs of threats to use nuclear weapons in Trump's statements, this does not mean a definite decision to use them." "It seems that the American side also uses these tools to exert psychological pressure."

Bakhshaish Ardestani continued by referring to his perception of the US and Israel's approach to Iran's nuclear program and stated: "It seems that some of the messages sent by the US and Israel may lead Iran to move towards acquiring nuclear weapons; "Because they see deterrence to a great extent in having nuclear weapons and missile power."

Referring to some statements by American officials about the consequences of Iran's possession of nuclear weapons, he said: "For example, it was said that Israel thought that by martyring the leader of Iran, the country would withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); The output that can be considered as the basis for moving towards the construction of nuclear weapons. Also, Mike Pompeo said earlier that America will not attack North Korea because this country has nuclear weapons, but Iran, which does not have such weapons, will be attacked. Trump also said in a statement that if Iran had nuclear weapons, America would say good morning to Iran's supreme leader every morning.

In the end, this member of parliament pointed out the difference between the views of Iran and Western countries on the issue of deterrence: "Of course, in our calculations, in addition to military and political considerations, we also consider God, Islam, and religious values, and for this reason, our view is different from the view of the West; "While they seek deterrence mainly in having nuclear weapons, missile power and military tools."