Sardar Sanaei-Rad, Deputy of the Leader's Political-Ideological Office, on Why the Islamabad Agreement Collapsed: The Original Memorandum Was in Iran's Favor / Americans, Under Pressure, Sought to Pass Several Ships and Planned Heavy Escorts for This, Which Actually Violated the Agreement

Sardar Sanaei-Rad said: A review of the agreement's terms shows that its core provisions were, in essence, in the favor of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Apparently, the Americans believed that by starting negotiations and using pressure and threats, they could extract concessions and make changes to the terms in their favor.

Fars: The political deputy of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief's Political Ideology Office, in response to the statements of some politicians regarding Iran's violation of the agreement by targeting ships, stated: Any internal accusations against the armed forces, apart from being far from the standards of political rationality and intelligence, is considered a form of persecution for the defenders of the homeland and a favor to the enemy.

Sardar Senairad, the political deputy of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief's Political Ideology Office, responded to the statements of some politicians that Iran violated the agreement by targeting ships and said: It is surprising to hear such claims from some political actors in the country, because these statements are a type of analytical error, which is referred to as "second step analysis".

Referring to the provisions of the Islamabad Agreement, he said: A review of the provisions of this agreement shows that the principle of these provisions was somehow in favor of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Apparently, the Americans thought that by starting negotiations and using the policy of pressure and threats, they would get concessions and make changes in the terms of the agreement in their favor.

Senai-Rad continued: What happened should be examined in connection with the fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran was in possession of the Strait of Hormuz at that time. This fact had somewhat distorted the position of the Americans to apply pressure policy in bargaining.

He added: The Americans sought to open a path other than the one agreed with Iran through pressure and deception. However, the agreement was that within two months, it would be possible for ships to travel through Iran's designated route or a safe route.

The political deputy of the Political Ideology Office of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief stated: The Americans sought to disrupt the ruling situation in the strait, because considering this situation, they could not pursue the policy of pressure and deception. Therefore, they tried to provide a path other than the safe path determined by Iran and parallel to it.

He pointed out: The fact is that the Americans started the violation of the memorandum by putting pressure on some countries to allow the passage of several ships from the southern route, which was parallel to Iran's safe route. Therefore, what happened started with the cunning and deceitful policy of the Americans, and they were the initiators of the violation of the memorandum.

Senai-Rad said: The Americans were trying to force some ships to pass and they had planned a heavy escort for this action. This escort itself was actually the second stage of violation of the memorandum. After that, they faced the response of the Islamic Republic of Iran by penetrating the Strait of Hormuz with American vessels.

Criticizing the claims that the Iranian armed forces were the initiators of these actions, he stated: Today it is claimed that the Iranian armed forces were the initiators, regardless of the circumstances of the incident, it is a form of oppression against the Iranian armed forces. Forces that definitely carry out their actions within the framework of the interests of the system and in the process of strategic decisions.

The Political Vice President of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief's Political Ideology Office continued: Apart from this, we should not forget that the original aggression against Iran by the United States and by shooting from the negotiation table took place at the beginning of the imposed war. Unfortunately, such political claims cause a logical, intelligent and dignified confrontation with the enemy to sacrifice political polarizations and factional interests to the detriment of national interests and security.

He emphasized: We must remember that we are now under threat from the enemy, and the enemy is seeking to use the policy of threats and pressure to change the equations of war. Any internal accusations, even against the armed forces, apart from being far from the standards of rationality and political intelligence, is considered a form of persecution to the defenders of the homeland and a favor to the enemy, and causes people's hearts to become empty.

In the end, Senai-Rad said: It seems that political actors should be very careful about such issues. Confronting the enemy requires internal unity, cohesion and unity, and some political claims, God forbid, should not be allowed to damage the internal unity and cohesion and will of our armed forces.