What the US is getting wrong about Iran: real version


TEHRAN — The New York Times took a dig at Iran in an opinion piece published Aug. 12, accusing it of being a government seeking “isolation.”

The spiteful essay accurately reflects the United States’ feelings toward Iran. We all know the United States is angry with Iran, but why?

The reason is simple. Iran has not abandoned its revolutionary philosophy. Let’s not forget that it was this revolutionary ideology that prompted the US to step up its efforts to overthrow the system and install someone in power who would become his own puppet. Iran has refused to follow the world’s great tyrant, the United States, under its revolutionary doctrine.

The fight against arrogance is one of the characteristics of the Islamic revolution. Iran can come to terms with the US on two conditions: the US must change its arrogant behavior and Iran must review its values. Neither of these two contingencies is considered likely. As a result, the United States is furious with Iran’s revolutionary nature.

“Several US administrations have tried to force or persuade Iran to reconsider its revolutionary ethos, but have failed. The reason is simple: normalization between the US and Iran could prove profoundly destabilizing for a theocratic government whose organizing principle is based on the fight against American imperialism,” the essay states.

The first part of the previous paragraph is correct. It is a candid acknowledgment of the failures of previous US administrations by a respected American media institution. The second part, on the other hand, is pure fabrication.

The essay then goes on and on about how Iran values ​​the “right level of isolation,” but fails to see that the “global system,” as the essay puts it, is not limited to the United States and a select few European countries. On the contrary, Iran maintains extensive diplomatic contacts with countries around the world, from Africa to Latin America.

Later, the essay points out that one or two deals between Tehran and Washington cannot solve a deep-seated problem. Again, the statement is a sincere commitment by the United States

“Sound US policy must balance the short-term goals of countering Iran’s nuclear and regional ambitions without hampering the long-term goal of a representative Iranian government driven by the national interests of its people and not the revolutionary ideology of its rulers will,” the essay reads.

However, it states that with the exception of George W. Bush, all US presidents over the past 43 years have attempted to mend relations with Iran. The notion appears to be dead wrong, as during Jimmy Carter’s rule the US attempted to invade Iran militarily via Tabas but failed. During the forced war of 1980-1989, the United States continuously supported Saddam Hussein by providing modern weaponry and satellite imagery of Iranian forces on the battlefield.

Subsequent US administrations did not hesitate to impose tough coercive sanctions on Tehran to bring the country to its knees. They have consistently supported armed opposition groups such as the MEK (Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organization) as well as separatist movements in Iranian provinces such as Kurdistan, Khuzestan and Azerbaijan.

They openly backed Mir Hossein Mousavi, a presidential candidate who later became an opposition leader whose real goal was to overthrow the system in 2009. They assassinated the late General Qassem Soleimani, a brave military leader who ended Daesh (ISIS) power in Syria and Iraq, now and then limited his influence to occasional operations, and let’s not forget that if he had would have been alive. The US also backed its best friend, the Israeli regime, in the broad daylight assassination of Iran’s top nuclear experts and has never criticized these crimes in any international body.

How can an imperialist regime with such dire records attempt to repair relations with Iran is a question only The New York Times can answer.

“Robert Cooper, a distinguished European diplomat who has negotiated with Iran, urges strategic patience. “Revolutionary forces don’t think like others,” he told me. “They don’t want any other place in the world; You want a different world. It’s not good to think that you can change them, but there may come a moment when they start having doubts or overcome their revolution…then you can do something,” the essay says.

Two ideas come to mind. One is that the revolutionary forces do not live in another world. Her perspective on the world is much broader than Cooper’s.

In addition, the statement reveals the level of United States displeasure and anger with Iran, given that the underlying problem with Iran is that Tehran is a revolutionary government that does not abide by the laws established by Washington.

Finally, the New York Times has brazenly targeted the leader of the Islamic Revolution. This is most likely due to their correct understanding of the issue that the leader is the captain of the ship, and he is a captain with a precise and deep awareness of the nature of the United States. He has so far thwarted the enemy’s many schemes and conspiracies, and not surprisingly the US is fiercely opposed to him.


About Author

Comments are closed.