Four Misconceptions in Mr. Karbaschi's Remarks
The "Be-Vaght-e Iran" program offers a good opportunity for public discussion of notions that, although they are believed by you, some political forces, and part of the citizenry, could lead to assessments and prescriptions that do not serve national interests during these pivotal months for Iran's security and future.
The "Behvaqt Iran" program is a good opportunity for a public discussion about the ideas that, although you and a number of political forces and some citizens believe, can lead to evaluations and prescriptions that do not serve the national interests in these critical months for Iran's security and prospects.
Ambassador Arjan-Political Group: Resorting to these misconceptions 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 they 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. Citizens and reformers who consider these ideas to be wrong can contribute to the growing public dialogue on this important issue by presenting their reasons. Among these ideas of error, four ideas were more central in your talks:
1️⃣ The concept of "Trump's need for an excuse to withdraw from the memorandum" error:
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? Isn't it clear that Trump's basis was only his "interests" and he failed everywhere, including signing the Islamabad Memorandum, not because he "didn't want more" or "had no excuse", but because he "couldn't do more". Trump has shown that he is even "without excuse" and in the most naked and shameless way, he is a criminal, bully, colonialist and covenant breaker, unless he is "unwilling or unable". Your insistence that war must be prevented "at any cost" is not a reasonable interpretation, because 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 an excuse", it can inadvertently become the basis for the aggressors to advance by targeting other levers and Libyaizing Iran, which cannot be approved by you.
2️⃣ The concept of the error "starting to violate the Islamabad Memorandum by Iran":
Not only the official report of Iran's representative in the United Nations, which has documented more than 100 examples of clear violations of the memorandum by the United States (under 42 titles) from the first day of signing, but even many prominent American experts and residents of the United States, including Stephen Walt and John Mersheimer, Jeffrey Sex, Wali Nasr, Trita Parsi, and Robert Mali, have stated that the United States was the first violator of the memorandum of understanding and that Trump, although he was forced to sign the memorandum with reservations, was under intense pressure. The Israeli lobby and the humiliation of the Democrats gradually distanced themselves from adherence to the memorandum. We even have a number of dear Iranian martyrs during this period of implementation of the memorandum. If Trump wanted to stay in the agreement, even after those shots (one violation by Iran after dozens of violations by the United States), he had the opportunity to accept Iran's proposal to return to the Islamabad Agreement or the 7-Article Agreement, and he said no. This bare evidence shows that even without those shots, Trump would have continued on the path of violating the understanding and taking the levers of Iran. This criticism of yours is an incoming criticism that the President/Chairman of Shaam should have been included in the decision to shoot at three ships by the Iranian armed forces in response to the previous violations of the United States, or even experts may prefer other effective reactions at that time, but from the perspective of Iran's national interests, the previous repeated violations of the memorandum by the United States should not be denied or whitewashed and practically victimized.
3️⃣ The concept of error "If people are satisfied, no one will look left at Iran":
You said in different languages and with different examples that if the citizens of Iran are satisfied and support the system, no one dares to look left at Iran. Certainly, social cohesion and citizen satisfaction is one of the important foundations of national power, but it is not the only and sufficient foundation. The Islamic Republic of Iran in 1959, a number of countries that were invaded in the world wars and the government of Ukraine in 2014 were supported by the majority of their citizens, but they were invaded. It is definitely necessary to try and 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, but it is wrong to make the impression that increasing the popularity of the political system is enough to defend the country against the aggressor. This idea is rooted in the theory of "security based on democratic peace", which has been extinct and invalidated for years. Social cohesion is necessary, but without the other three pillars of national power - military, economic and diplomatic power - it cannot necessarily prevent war, aggression and colonialism, especially in the geography of Iran and West Asia after the genocide. To strengthen social solidarity and cohesion, the release of political prisoners is desirable, but not sufficient. Even more important is the reduction of all kinds of inequality and the government's focus on taking care of the most deprived citizens (for example, by increasing the amount of the goods and guaranteeing the supply of medicine and food security for everyone), which was not emphasized in your speech.
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 blockade with a capable headquarters of economic warfare) and discourage the success of the military attack. Iran's more active design and grounding and game-making to open the knots of China's lock-breaking entry into the scene and plant the seeds of regional collective security without the presence of the US (an alternative to the Ibrahim Pact) can also work if possible. But in the same field of social cohesion, in addition to inviting the rulers not to activate social faults and send horizon-building pulses to the citizens, which was rightly emphasized by you, 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? Does the pulse give "cohesion of political forces in national defense against the aggressor and the besieger" or the split pulse?
4 ️⃣ Error example of "67 being 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. If, thanks to Iran's military, diplomatic, economic and social resistance, it is disappointed with the success of the blockade or aggression or "forced diplomacy", maybe it will come to the table again like the signing of the Islamabad Memorandum. Until that moment, all the components of Iran's national power should be strengthened and not highlight this mistake as if there is an honorable peace proposal on Iran's table and we are the ones who don't accept it or we are the ones who are the ones who make excuses for aggression and encirclement. Whenever we reach that point - which is too late - the signature is no longer drinking the cup of poison, but drinking the sweet nectar of the recognition of Iran's strategic independence and the essentials of Iran's survival and security; The nectar that drinking is necessary for development, justice, freedom and democracy in Iran.
Along with Donald Trump's continued threats against Iran, there are reports of a maritime accident in the Strait of Hormuz, the return of an American aircraft carrier to the Arabian Sea, and an increase in Israel's security alert. On the other hand, the authorities of our country have emphasized on strengthening the military power, responding to the violation of American commitments and the necessity of creating sustainable deterrence; While the economic consequences of the war and regional diplomatic efforts continue, US President Donald Trump once again reiterated his claims about Iran's nuclear program, saying that Tehran will never acquire nuclear weapons. He also claimed that with the end of the war, the price of oil and other goods will drop drastically.
The latest developments in the Iran-US war have been accompanied by an increase in diplomatic consultations and, at the same time, continued disputes over the nuclear program and the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranian official has stated that Washington's proposals are in conflict with Tehran's demands and that Iran will not give up its right to enrichment, while Russia has announced its readiness to help reduce tensions.
The latest developments in the Iran-US war indicate the continuation of diplomatic consultations and the increase of political and military pressures; While Tehran insists on its conditions for restoring the security of the Strait of Hormuz, Washington continues to raise contradictory positions about the negotiations and Iran's nuclear program. At the same time, Qatar's efforts to bring the views of the two sides closer and regional movements have brought the equations of this crisis into a new phase.