Mohammadreza Jalaeipour on Four Mistaken Assumptions of Karbaschi

There is no honorable peace deal on Iran's table today. Trump now openly says: either give me everything, or I will destroy you.

According to Ambassador Arjan, Mohammad Reza Jalaipour, a political activist of the revolution, wrote in a note:

The appeal of some reformers to the notion of error creates the image that they are judging national security based on obsolete theoretical foundations and wrong data.

Relying on the notions of error can create the image that a part of the reformers judge important national security issues with weak or extinct theoretical bases and wrong and negligent data and do not pay enough attention to the changes in the regional and global scene and the requirements of strengthening the components of national power against aggressors who clearly threaten existence and civilization.

The example of the error "Trump needs an excuse to withdraw from the memorandum":

The summary of a large part of your talk was that Iran did not try hard enough to give America an "excuse".

Let's assume that we ignore all of Iran's efforts in these three decades and the last two years with the same goal and the continuation of America's colonial aggressions and accept your assessment.

Did Trump basically need an "excuse" to withdraw from the agreement? Did he have an excuse for withdrawing from JCPOA and 13 important international institutions and understandings and violating agreements with Canada, France and 15 other countries?

If "handing over the levers of national power" (for example, Iran's missile power or the Strait of Hormuz) is one of these prices for "not giving excuses", it can inadvertently become the basis for the advance of the aggressors with the aim of taking other levers and making Iran Libyan, which cannot be approved by you.

The concept of "Iran's violation of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding":

Many prominent American experts living in America, including Stephen Walt, John Mersheimer, Jeffrey Sex, Wali Nasr, Trita Parsi, and Robert Mali, have stated that the United States was the first violator of the agreement, and that Trump, although he was forced to sign the agreement with reservations, gradually distanced himself from adhering to the agreement under the intense pressure of the Israeli lobby and the humiliation of the Democrats.

We even have a number of dear Iranian martyrs during this period of implementation of the memorandum. From the point of view of Iran's national interests, the previous repeated violations of the memorandum by the US should not be denied or whitewashed and practically victimized.

The concept of error "If people are satisfied, no one will look left at Iran":

Efforts must be made to encourage and ensure that the general satisfaction of the citizens increases and the people who act to protect Iran on the streets and in other arenas become more inclusive.

For the stable end of the war and siege, it is necessary to strengthen the combined deterrence and discourage the effectiveness of the siege (reducing the effect of the siege with a capable headquarters of economic warfare) and discourage the success of the military attack.

Shouldn't the political forces themselves play a responsible role? Will talks like last night, which practically blame Iran without sufficient evidence, increase or decrease this social cohesion?

Example of the error "67 is the scene":

You mentioned Jam Zohr and Turkmanchai several times, but the scene is not 67E at all. In 1967, there was a peace proposal on Iran's table that recognized Iran and its acceptance would not take Iran's levers to prevent future wars or defend its vital interests.

Today, there is no respectable peace treaty on Iran's table. Trump is openly saying today either give me everything or I will destroy you.