Zarif and Marashi's plan to save Iran; a repeat of Turkmenchay!

While Zarif and Marashi speak of a tactical retreat to prevent war, critics warn that concessions to the United States are not the path to saving Iran, but a repeat of the costly JCPOA experience.

According to Ambassador Arjan, the recent statements of two well-known reformist figures about "tactical retreat" and the necessity of immediate negotiations with the US have provoked discussions and critical reactions in the political atmosphere of the country. In a situation where Iran is still standing after two periods of heavy military conflict with America and the Zionist regime, some political figures emphasize the necessity of flexibility and concessions to prevent further conflicts; An approach that has been opposed by another group of political activists.

Mohammad Javad Zarif has spoken about the necessity of taking political and military measures, including "tactical retreat", to protect Iran in his statements that have been noticed once again.

He also raised China's experience in negotiating with the United States as a model to be investigated and claimed that Iran does not have enough uranium to build nuclear weapons.

A few days ago, Hossein Marashi, the Secretary General of the Construction Agents Party, also warned the President, the Speaker of the Parliament, the Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and the IRGC commanders: "To prevent a possible third war, you absolutely have no right to take any risks." "Any tactical retreat that is necessary must be done to preserve Iran." He did not consider the negotiation as treason and emphasized that the war will end either in the military field or in the diplomatic field.

Parviz Sarvari, the vice-chairman of Tehran City Council, reacted to Zarif and Marashi's statements in the council meeting and criticized this approach and said: "Fear-oriented gentlemen, today is not the day to back down. "Retreating at this point means signing the document of destruction and disintegration of Iran."

Remembering the JCPOA experience, Sarvari emphasized: "You went to negotiate, broke the leadership's red lines and gave concessions." Now, be brave and tell the people what happened to the so-called opportunity-oriented JJJAM?

He also warned that in his opinion, the enemy's goal is not only to get temporary concessions, but also to target Iran's independence and territorial integrity.

Arbitration reaction to Zarif's claim about uranium reserves

Abdulreza Davari also challenged Zarif's claim about the amount of Iran's uranium reserves and cited the statistics attributed to the 2024 Red Book of the International Atomic Energy Agency to refute it.

According to the figures mentioned in this report, Iran has about 3,200 tons of definite reserves and a total of about 7,400 tons of identified uranium resources. The figures that the arbitration made the basis for criticizing Zarif's claim. He asked Zarif to publish his calculations and documents.

Sadegh Tahabi, the Secretary General of the Stability Front, also said in response to the issue of negotiations with America: "Give me your existence and non-existence, America will not be satisfied."

Referring to what he considers to be the past experience, he claimed that every time Iran failed, the other side attacked. Based on this, a product has considered resistance and creation of real deterrence as a solution to deal with American pressures.

Does the US want to negotiate or surrender to Iran?

One of the main axes of this dispute is defining the goal of America in negotiations with Iran. In the narrative of the critics of negotiation from a position of weakness, what Donald Trump and members of his government have put forward many times is different from conventional negotiation, and according to them, Washington's goal is to surrender Iran, destroy the country's missile power and disarm.

In this context, the view is raised that the United States will accept an agreement that severely limits Iran's defense power. In this narrative, pressure on Iran's oil exports is also part of Washington's strategy to increase economic pressure on Tehran and limit Iran-China oil cooperation.

America has repeatedly tried to dissuade Beijing from buying Iranian oil; However, according to the claim made in this report, China still buys a major part of Iran's oil exports and so far has not fully backed down against Washington's pressure.

Two wars and one result; Failure of the enemy's calculations?

Iran has stood in two periods of heavy military conflict with America and the Zionist regime. According to the narrative of this report, the 12-day war of 1404 and the 40-day war at the beginning of 1405, despite thousands of air and missile attacks, could not achieve the stated goals of the other party.

In this context, the views of Western analysts have also been cited. Justin Bronk, a senior researcher at London's RUSI think tank, wrote in an article in Foreign Affairs that the Iran war has "seriously tarnished the global aura of American air power." According to this report, from his point of view, the US and Israel's reliance on the air campaign to bring Iran to its knees is a disastrous use of military resources, and air superiority alone is not enough to achieve unrealistic political goals.

Al Jazeera's analysis also, according to what is stated in this report, shows that the war, which was supposed to be short and controlled, turned into an attrition conflict. In this narrative, Iran's political structure did not change, the country's missile and UAV capabilities were maintained, and strategic control over the Strait of Hormuz remained as a lever for bargaining.

Accordingly, America and Israel did not achieve their main goals despite the heavy human and financial costs and extensive consumption of ammunition stocks; The assessment presented in this report is part of the argument of the opponents of unilateral withdrawal.

Now is the time to stand up, not back down

In such a situation, the opponents of unilateral withdrawal believe that proposing the issue of "tactical withdrawal" without setting clear borders and receiving mutual guarantees can be dangerous. From their point of view, past experiences have shown that withdrawing without sufficient support and guarantees not only does not necessarily lead to a reduction in pressure, but may encourage the other side to demand more concessions.

However, the discussion on negotiations with the United States cannot be limited to the dual negotiation or non-negotiation. The main axis of the dispute is how to negotiate, the limits of scoring and the ratio of diplomacy to the defense power of the country; An issue that has been reflected in the statements of supporters and opponents of tactical retreat in different ways.

On this basis, the solution emphasized by critics is retreat, powerful and dignified negotiation from the position of authority; A negotiation that puts diplomacy on the side of the field and is based on maintaining defense power, independence and national honor. From their point of view, it is possible to preserve Iran not by bowing down to the enemy, but by standing up, maintaining deterrent power and relying on national honor.

According to Ambassador Arjan, in his recent statements, Mohammad Javad Zarif emphasized the necessity of adopting political and military measures to protect Iran, spoke of "tactical withdrawal" as one of the options to be considered, and brought up China's experience in negotiating with the United States. He also commented on Iran's nuclear power; Positions that, along with Hossein Marashi's emphasis on the necessity of retreat to prevent a possible war, have started a new discussion about the limits of flexibility against Washington and the relationship between diplomacy and maintaining the country's deterrence power.