Some argue for the necessity of coexistence with Iran due to geographical factors, and for finding a formula to deal with it on this basis. This perspective is valid, but it depends on the existence of a stable political and economic system, which is currently lacking in Iran.
The foundation upon which the Iranian regime is built contradicts with the principles of states that respect the choices of their people, uphold good neighborly relations, and do not seek to export their revolution or expand their influence. For 47 years, the region, particularly the Gulf states, underwent continuous Iranian interference in internal affairs and persistent acts of terrorism, especially during the last war. These experiences left no room for establishing relations based on trust and good neighborliness.
Tehran has undermined every foundation that could lead these countries to reconsider their relationship with it, as the saying goes, “Once bitten, twice shy.” For 47 years, the Gulf states have not received a unified message from the pillars of the Iranian regime. Every hour, contradictory statements emerge from Tehran, whether from the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, the President, the Speaker of Parliament, the Revolutionary Guard, the Khatam al- Anbiya Construction Headquarters, or the Foreign Minister.
A careful reading of these statements reveals an implicit, unspoken language that could be termed “political dissimulation,” which even contradicts the well-known diplomatic principle of “yes … but.” This is why US President Donald Trump was right when he said, in the context of negotiations with Iran, “We are dealing with lunatics.” He was stating a fact because the wide range of opinions reflects a flawed vision and decision-making process. This situation also applies to the internal situation in Iran, but with even greater severity. This is evident in the regime’s treatment of the people, who have been struggling for five decades to meet their basic needs. Around 85 percent of Iranians are reported to be at risk of poverty, while the regime offers nothing but further repression. A US official expressed this sentiment by stating, “The Iranian regime has been severely damaged and has no option left but to further repress the people.”
This regime reminds us of Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge leader, who committed massacres against his own people in Cambodia just because he wanted to. The Khmer Rouge regime, driven by extremist ideology, was responsible for genocide and the displacement of millions, which is widely regarded as one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century. The mullahs’ regime is not different from the Khmer Rouge.
During every uprising, the Iranian regime killed tens of thousands of innocent people who were only seeking to live with dignity and escape from hardship. Unfortunately, since 1979, this regime has always found those willing to accommodate it, particularly the United States, which has appeased it since the era of former US President Jimmy Carter, continuing through Joe Biden. This appeasement also occurred during the first administration of current President Donald Trump.
This approach has allowed the Iranian regime to extend its influence into several Arab capitals, contributing to the destruction of Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon, in addition to the Gaza Strip, which it has ruled for decades. Undoubtedly, this has weakened the political and economic resilience of Arab states, as they are constantly preoccupied with combating Iranian influence and Tehran’s proxies in the region. To this day, this situation remains unchanged, and instability continues in several parts of the Arab region with the escalation of destruction and genocide.
This means that any attempt at reconciliation with the Iranian regime could lead to further crises because the regime cannot survive in a stable situation. Hence, the proposed solution is a major popular revolution. The mullahs’ regime is well aware of this, and is therefore seeking to prolong crises, as it serves as a source of continuity for it. Based on this, the Iranian regime is seen as stalling in responding to American messages, to the point that the Pakistani negotiator has repeatedly expressed frustration over these delays.
All of this leads to one conclusion - appeasement of Tehran is nothing but a waste of time, increasing the suffering of the Iranian people and further straining the global economy. Therefore, a firm stance against this regime is a mercy for its people, for the region, and for the world.
