Attempting to Repeat Turkmenchay with Tactical Retreat Makeup!

Majid Rafiee

The discussion of negotiations with America and the concept of tactical withdrawal has become hot once again in the political atmosphere of Iran. The recent statements of Mohammad Javad Zarif and Hossein Marashi about the necessity of immediate negotiation and acceptance of tactical withdrawal to protect the country have provoked widespread reactions. These views are raised while Iran, after two periods of heavy military conflict with the United States and the Zionist regime, is still standing in a position of power and has maintained its missile capability. Zarif emphasized the need to adopt any political and military measures, including tactical retreat, to protect Iran and brought up the model of China in negotiations with the United States. Marashi also warned the country's high officials that no risk should be accepted and any necessary tactical retreat should be done to prevent a possible third war. He did not consider negotiations with America as treason and considered the end of the war possible either in the military field or in the field of diplomacy. The JCPOA experience shows that such approaches have been tested before. During that period, they entered negotiations with the motto of tactfulness and opportunism, ignored the leadership's red lines and granted concessions. The final result was the return of sanctions, the intensification of economic pressure and the increase of the courage of the other side. Repeating the same logic in negotiations with America today carries the risk of repeating the same results and can lead to the weakening of Iran's independence. The claim made about the lack of Iran's uranium reserves is also inconsistent with official data. The reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the 2024 Red Book indicate the expansion of uranium mining activities and the increase of Iran's identified reserves. IAEA's quarterly reports also indicate a significant increase in the stockpile of enriched uranium close to weapons level. These statistical facts undermine the claims related to lack of resources and highlight the importance of maintaining Iran's nuclear capability. The stated goals of the United States in negotiations with Iran are clear. Donald Trump has repeatedly emphasized the prohibition of Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons and has sometimes spoken of unconditional surrender and severe limitation of Iran's missile capabilities. Pressure on Iran's oil exports and efforts to reduce China's purchase of Iranian oil are part of this maximum pressure strategy. In recent years, China has absorbed the majority of Iran's oil exports and despite the fluctuations caused by the conflicts, it has not completely withdrawn from this market. The two recent military conflicts have also brought clear results. The twelve-day war in the summer of 1404 and the longer conflict at the beginning of 1405, despite thousands of air and missile attacks, could not achieve the main goals of the enemy. The government structure was maintained, Iran's missile and drone capabilities continued, and the strategic control of the Strait of Hormuz remained as a bargaining lever.

Justin Bronk, a senior researcher at RUSI think tank, emphasized in an article in Foreign Affairs that the US and Israel's reliance on the air campaign is a disastrous misuse of military resources and that air superiority alone is not enough to achieve unrealistic political goals. The analyzes of Al Jazeera and other western sources have confirmed that the conflict has turned into a war of attrition and the failure to achieve the main goals. The contemporary history of Iran shows that unilateral withdrawal in negotiations with the United States does not satisfy the enemy, but increases his motivation for more pressure. Each time we fall short, the next attack is more severe. Real deterrence comes from resistance and increasing the cost of advance to the enemy, not from incremental concessions without mutual guarantees and clear boundaries. Maintaining Iran's missile power and the country's independence against foreign pressures is the most important national priority. In the current situation, it is dangerous to talk about tactical withdrawal without a precise definition of red lines and valid guarantees. The enemy is not looking for a temporary retreat; It has targeted the independence and territorial integrity of Iran. Repetition of experiences like Turkmencha under the cover of negotiations with America will bring heavy costs for future generations. Standing on principled positions and strengthening deterrence is the real way to protect Iran's national interests.