Although the US played a highly active role in Israel’s
12-day war against Iran, the operation was designed to fully draw Washington
into the conflict by replicating the shock and political consequences of the
September 11 attacks.
In an analysis, Sobh-e-No highlighted Israel’s history of
breaching agreements and lack of commitment to ceasefires and the need for Iran
to remain fully ready for violation of the ceasefire that went into effect on
June 25. It wrote, “Despite the official declaration of a ceasefire between the
Islamic Republic of Iran and the Zionist regime, historical evidence shows that
the Israeli regime often does not commit to agreements. This ceasefire
agreement has seemingly created hope for a temporary halt to attacks. The
Islamic Republic of Iran must continue to maintain its vigilance at the highest
level. Complete defensive and operational readiness, along with strengthening
defense and intelligence systems, is necessary to deal with any betrayal or
re-attack by the Zionist regime. At the same time, the country's diplomatic
apparatus must reflect the regime's repeated violations of international rules
and inform the global public opinion of the unreliable nature of Israel. In the
current circumstances, trusting the Zionist regime's commitment to a ceasefire
without deterrent measures and full readiness would be nothing more than
naivety. This regime has repeatedly shown that it does not adhere to any of
international rules and regulations. Therefore, staying prepared and alert is
the only way to protect the country's national security”.
In a note, Donya-e-Eqtesad addressed Iran's intelligent silence
towards the West and wrote, “The ceasefire that was recently agreed between
Iran and Israel with Washington's mediation was not out of moral concern or for
peace, but to prevent the spread of tension to energy markets and America's
global competition with China. America's military involvement in the recent war
was limited and calculated. Trump has adopted an ambivalent position. In
response to the recent conflict, he said, "Both Iran and Israel violated
the agreement, and I am not happy with either of them." This artificial
neutrality is precisely a reflection of the same cost-oriented view of the
region. Therefore, now that neither Washington has an incentive to continue
sanctions nor Tel Aviv - consciously or unintentionally - has maintained the
image of a threat, Iran should not rush to prove that it is a danger. The best
response at this moment is an intelligent silence. In politics, you don't
always have to speak for yourself. Sometimes it is enough to wait for the other
party to speak your language without knowing it, and make others doubt”.
Theorists of “Strategic Solitude” believe that Iran can never
be part of the orbit of the great coalitions of world powers, not because of
political mistakes, but because of the country’s particular characteristics,
such as the Persian language, the Shiite religion, and its specific
geographical location. From their view, the great powers of the region do not
consider Iran as part of their strategic team. As a result, Iran is forced to
rely on itself and follow the path of authority from within, by strengthening
internal power and increasing popular legitimacy. Contrary to the common
perception of strategic solitude, Iranian analysts see it as an opportunity for
independent action in the region. They believe that Iran’s historical
experience has been filled with the betrayal of great powers, from Russia and
Britain to today’s America and China. According to this view, Iran can never
rely on others, because others always make and break agreements in line with
their preferences. Iran's strategic solitude is the result of its political
system, prevailing discourse, and the Islamic Republic’s deliberate orientation
in foreign policy. This perspective views the phenomenon not as inherent, but
as a political and discursive construct.
No comments:
Post a Comment