Iran’s dual strategy in the negotiation process

The signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between Iran and the United States, mediated by Pakistan, and the subsequent statement by the Supreme Leader, both together demonstrate a strategic political strategy that is unparalleled in contemporary politics. The Supreme Leader has transformed the great military superiority achieved on the battlefield into a political trust and has handed over the full weight of this superiority to the mediator, the negotiation process, and the Iranian government, because they all know very well that negotiations are not the result of any weakness, retreat, or compulsion, but rather the fruit of this military superiority. This is no longer just the responsibility of the resistance, but has become a test for all forces that have taken the path of negotiations, guarantees, and mediation. Now they must achieve the results that Iran was in a position to achieve on the battlefield. At the same time, the Supreme Leader also kept the other path open with full insight. He made it clear that in principle he was not convinced of this path, however, based on the decision of the state system and the guarantees given, he has been given a chance. That is, this development is not an expression of unconditional trust, but rather a conditional political opportunity. If these guarantees are met, the goals that Iran wants to achieve can be achieved through diplomacy. But if these guarantees are not met, the situation will be completely different. The revolutionary stance within Iran will become stronger, the space for circles with a conciliatory point of view will be exhausted, while mediators, guarantor countries, and Arab allies will also lose the moral and political justification to accuse Iran of any kind. If the Supreme Leader has decided to give the path of negotiations a chance, there is certainly deep wisdom and expediency involved. In my opinion, this stage is extremely important for completing the argument, testing the various parties, and clarifying the facts. That is why the revolutionary people of Iran should also accept the negotiations not as the end, but as a stage of resistance. They are neither complacent nor have they given up on the resistance, but rather they are mentally, politically, and practically prepared for every eventuality. If the negotiations succeed, it will be considered a political victory for the resistance, and if they fail, the resistance is already ready to enter its next phase. It is against this backdrop that Israel’s efforts to undermine the negotiation process, broaden the scope of the war, and cast doubt on mediation can be understood. Israel is not only concerned about war, but also fears that the United States will at some point distance itself from this crisis, prioritizing its broader global interests. That is why every diplomatic breakthrough that limits tensions or paves the way for a political solution becomes a challenge for Israel, because in such a case it is unable to keep its most important ally tied to a constant state of war. If major regional issues begin to move forward through diplomacy, regional connections, and political understanding, the impression also strengthens that the fundamental problems of the Middle East can move forward without Israel’s direct involvement or conditions. This is the concept that Israel does not want to allow to flourish. It is in this context that Pakistan’s important diplomatic role can also be understood. The reality is that the entire region, including the Arab countries, cannot afford a large-scale war that would benefit Israel the most and the entire Middle East pay the price in the form of destruction, instability, and mutual division, and divert public anger away from US and Israeli policies and toward internal conflicts, sectarianism, ethnic divisions, or Arab-Nation differences. In this entire process, the criminal United States may find a safe diplomatic path, but this path is not being found while maintaining its absolute supremacy, but rather after the limitations of its power have been revealed to the world. The memorandum of understanding points to the fact that Iran could neither be subdued through military pressure nor diverted from the path of resistance. All of these factors have put the United States under extraordinary strategic pressure. On one side is Iran’s resistance, the tenacity and effectiveness of which is evidenced by the memorandum of understanding itself; on the other, Israel wants Washington to remain completely involved in this crisis; while on the third, regional allies want a reduction in tensions so that their economies and internal stability can be preserved. As a result, America finds itself in a position where moving forward is both dangerous and retreating is not easy. The continuation of Israeli attacks on Lebanon, despite US insistence and pressure, is also highlighting the fact that Washington is incapable of steering even its closest ally in line with its policy. Each new Israeli attack on Lebanon is exposing America’s worthlessness and practical helplessness to the world, and is bringing Iran’s enemies closer to confrontation. Thus, an important result of this entire conflict is that the resistance has highlighted the contradictions, conflicting interests, and weaknesses within the opposing alliance, not only on the battlefield but also at the political and diplomatic levels. The greatest achievement of any struggle is not only the military defeat of the enemy, but also exposing to the world the cracks in its political, diplomatic, and strategic structure.