Since the Iranian devil is in the details, the new tune of the regime started with the violation of the agreement with the United States of America (USA) before it was officially approved. This confirms that force is the only language understood by the Tehran regime, just as it has been doing with its people for the past five decades. Yesterday, the Iranian parliament speaker posted on the ‘X’ platform that “Iran does not submit to pressure or threats. If they want an agreement, let them negotiate. If they want gasoline at $6, let them stand and make threats until the grass grows under their feet.”
He was referring to the United States. There is an Iranian political misunderstanding of the culture followed by the current American administration. It is different from those administrations that followed the Persian methodology based on the principle of “procrastination until reaching the goal.”
Consequently, the issuance of contradicting reports from Tehran and Washington is similar to a stock market speculation game. Whenever an American official confirms that an agreement is close, one of the leaders of the Iranian regime comes out to say that the road is still long. Whenever the American president says that he has given the negotiating delegation more time, another Iranian official declares that the agreement is close.
This game is not palatable to the West, especially the Americans, who are clear in their position: either yes or no, and not as we wrote yesterday, “Yes means No for Iran.” Hence, the fields are not open indefinitely, as the world will not continue to submit to the Iranian will, while the international economy is going through one of its most complex crises, as a result of the Revolutionary Guard closing the Strait of Hormuz and threatening to close Bab Al-Mandab Strait as well. According to American sources, the game is over. If the Iranian devil is in the details, then the best remedy for this matter is decisiveness. The words of the American Secretary of State were clear on this matter: “Coming to the table and signing the conditions imposed by Washington is not up for debate, and those conditions can change any moment.”
As per President Donald Trump, this was clear from the beginning. Returning to the peaceful nuclear program that began in the 1950s, with the help of Western countries, including France and the United States, is now a thing of the past, because the current regime broke its promises in the 1980s and it has been conducting nuclear military research since 1990.
So, when Iran’s neighboring countries warn about a nuclear arms race, they are fully aware that the other party is hiding its intentions regarding the peaceful nature of its program. Yes, former US President Barack Obama agreed with Tehran, but in reality, he gave it more time to complete its nuclear military research. Consequently, when President Trump canceled that agreement due to its obvious flaws, he realized that the 10-year freeze on enrichment was an opportunity to prolong the life of the Persian regime and bring it closer to acquiring a weapon of mass destruction.
Why does the military nuclear program of Iran pose a dilemma? Why are assurances insufficient? Frankly, the reason is that the program is linked to an ideological project in the text of the constitution, which is “exporting the revolution.” This text does not exist in any other constitution in the world, only in Iran. If the matter is linked to the meaning of this text from the ideological perspective of the regime, then it endeavors to “export its sectarian approach.”
Thus, the insistence on stalling the nuclear project has no explanation other than that if the regime possesses a weapon of mass destruction, it will blackmail other countries, at least its neighbors, to accept its political-sectarian agenda, as if it is reviving the political moment that Ismail Safavi imposed on the Iranians in the 16th century, albeit in a reverse manner. This is the big picture of what the Tehran regime is seeking. Will the world and the countries in the region accept turning back the clock to the 16th century?
