Saeed Lilaz; Fouad Yazidi, a reformist?

Saeed Lilaz's positions on economic sanctions, Iran-US relations and the need to strengthen deterrence power overlap with the official narrative of foreign policy. This convergence, given his reformist background, has raised questions about the political and media function of his analysis.

In recent years, Ambassador Arjan-Lilaz has adopted positions about the United States, economic sanctions, the process of negotiations, the logic of resistance, regional conflicts and internal structural issues, which in many respects are not fundamentally different from the official narrative of the fundamentalist movement. But there is a decisive difference: these statements are not made by a well-known fundamentalist figure, but by someone who is still known in the public opinion as a reformist economist and political activist.

This cognitive difference doubles the analytical and functional importance of Lilaz.

For many years, Fouad Yazidi has emphasized distrust of the West, the necessity of national stability, the importance of deterrence power, and the inherent limitations of negotiation. But the active political audience knows his structural position and knows what he is talking about. Hence, the echo of his words is mainly limited within the aligned camp.

On the other hand, Lilaz presents the same propositions with a different political identity. He has a record of being a member of the Construction Agents Party, officially supporting prominent reformist candidates, being arrested after the 2008 elections, and active presence in the reformist media for years. As a result, when he states that sanctions are not the main cause of Iran's economic problems, the impact and impact of his words will be completely different from the expression of the same sentence by a fundamentalist figure.

The analytical message made from this speech is quite clear: even a leading reformist economist and governance critic admits that foreign policy and international pressures are not the main cause of the country's problems.

At this exact point, Lilaz goes beyond an independent analyst and becomes a "witness from the opposite camp".

1. The main issue is not reading intentions

It is possible that Lilaz has an inner belief in all these analyses; It is even possible that his positions are the result of a personal thought process and there is no coordination or organized planning behind it.

Without relying on solid documents, it cannot be claimed that a specific institution or movement directs his policy. But in order to explain the political function of Lilaz, there is basically no need to prove such structural connections.

In the field of politics and media, it is not necessary for a political activist to be the official envoy of a movement; Sometimes it is enough that one's positions overlap with the strategic goals of that movement. In this case, aligned media highlight his words, provide him with multiple platforms and emphasize the different identity of the speaker. The individual also benefits from the visibility, analytical influence and access to over-the-air media.

In this way, a mutual synergy is formed: Lilaz gives extra-sectarian validity to a particular narrative, and that narrative also provides an analytical platform and dignity for Leilaz.

Therefore, the key question is not whether he is strongly in the service of a particular movement or not; Rather, the fundamental question is that what policies and approaches are applied today in the service of justifying his words.

2. Marginalization and minimization of the effect of sanctions

One of the central and consistent propositions in Lilaz's analysis is that the main root of Iran's economic challenges lies not in sanctions, but in mismanagement, structural corruption, waste of resources, mandated pricing, and incorrect domestic policies.

Undoubtedly, an important part of the country's economic challenges is due to internal inefficiencies, and inefficiencies cannot be hidden behind the wall of sanctions. But in order to emphasize this fact, Lilaz sometimes moves towards unrealistically reducing the volume and intensity of the sanctions.

In a comprehensive analytical view, sanctions are a structural variable affecting investment, currency value and trade; While the analytical model of Lilaz reduces it to a secondary and marginal variable compared to internal inefficiency. Also, from the point of view of responsibility, the analytical view of criticism sees the direct connection between economic costs and international orientations, but the Lilaz model leads to the approximate exemption of foreign policy from livelihood consequences. Finally, the solution to overcome the crisis from a comprehensive analytical point of view is to simultaneously reform domestic governance and remove international isolation; But Lilaz's model emphasizes on focusing on executive decisiveness and the coherence of power without passivity towards the West.

The embargo is not simply an obstacle to the sale of oil or simple financial transactions; Rather, it severely disrupts foreign investment, technology transfer, transaction costs, the value of the national currency, and the possibility of long-term planning. One can simultaneously be a serious critic of domestic governance and at the same time recognize the decisive contribution of sanctions.

But the practical consequence of Lilaz's narrative is that foreign policy is exempted from responsibility for economic consequences.

In this analytical structure, if a drop in purchasing power occurs, the main factor is internal corruption; If the investment is stopped, the reason is in domestic politics, and if the exchange rate jumps, the root should be sought only in liquidity. All of these variables are real, but when international pressure and economic isolation are removed from the equation, a key part of the picture is erased.

This analytical achievement is exactly the same as the strategic need of the defenders of the status quo in foreign policy: accepting domestic executive inefficiency, but denying its direct relationship with international macro orientations.

3. Reconstruction of the logic of resistance with political economy literature

The official stream usually explains the pattern of stability and resistance with ideological literature, national security and independence. But Lilaz reconstructs the same logic with a different lexical device and analytical literature.

Using the course of history, the balance of international relations, the logic of historical analysis, and the concepts of political economy, he tries to show that the United States is unreliable, Europe lacks independence of action, dialogue without power tools will be fruitless, and Iran must maintain its level of deterrence and defensive authority.

In this new formulation, sustainability is no longer just an ideological preference; Rather, it is redefined as the result of historical rationality and a realistic understanding of power relations.

This is the point where the term "reformist Fouad Yazidi" shows its analytical dimensions.

Both figures talk about the structural confrontation between Iran and America; Both consider the possibility of a sustainable agreement very limited; Both consider diplomacy to rely only on the instrument of authentic power, and both attribute the failure of agreements to the nature of the other party's behavior rather than possible errors in domestic diplomacy.

The difference is not in the final content; Rather, it is the speaker's analytical language and political identity card.

Fouad Yazidi presents these concepts in the framework of fundamentalist political literature, but Lilaz formulates the same concepts in the form of economics, historical analysis, national interests and social justice. The first one convinces the traditional body of supporters of the government, and the second one has the ability to involve the academic audience, the middle class and the reformist body.

4. Analytical framework always wins

The fundamental challenge of Lilaz's analytical model is that its structure is designed in such a way that it maintains its justification against any event.

If the country resists external pressures, it considers it as an indication of the sufficiency of deterrence power. If the sanctions are intensified, he claims that the sanctions are not the determining variable. If the negotiations fail, he analyzes the cause in the other party's lack of will. If an agreement is reached, he considers it a product of defense authority. If a conflict occurs, the responsibility lies with the foreign party, and if no war occurs, it is considered the success of the deterrence model.

In such a closed structure, every consequence leads to the confirmation of the initial hypothesis. The existing foreign policy may create heavy costs, but in this analytical model, it is never placed in the position of primary accountability.

Lilaz can direct the harshest criticisms towards corruption and structural inefficiency, but keep the foundation of foreign policy immune from direct criticism. This feature makes his positions very effective for the media aligned with the official narrative.

He is a critic; Therefore, his words are not considered direct advertisements. is reformist; So his speech is considered as an acknowledgment of the critic's camp. is an economist; As a result, his political position takes on an expert and specialized aspect.

5. Structural criticism with authoritarian consequences

Lilaz also makes explicit criticisms regarding domestic relations. He talks about corruption, inefficiency of the decision-making system, and executive obstructions. But the main point lies in his final plan.

His proposed model does not necessarily rely on the development of political freedoms, the strengthening of civil society, the accountability of power institutions, or the fair distribution of the power structure; Rather, he speaks of the necessity of the emergence of coherent, decisive and concentrated power; A format that he refers to as the authoritarian development model (enlightened tyranny).

In the analytical logic of Lilaz, the main problem of the country is not only the concentration of power; Rather, it is the plurality of decision-making centers, the dispersion of power and the inability to adopt and implement tough economic decisions. Therefore, the country needs a structure that can overcome obstacles and carry out economic reforms with determination.

This type of analysis brings the criticism of the existing situation to different results from the traditional concepts of reformism. Lilaz starts from inefficiency and corruption, but instead of the need to contain and control power, it reaches the need to focus and consolidate more power.

Simply put, his analysis emphasizes that the main problem is not the concentration of power; Rather, it is the lack of coherence, decisiveness and sufficient efficiency in the executive structure.