The Endless Nuclear Marathon and the Shattered Dreams of a Nation
The Endless Nuclear Marathon and the Shattered Dreams of a Nation
Déjà vu means the feeling of familiarity, meaning a new event happens or a person enters a new place but thinks they have experienced this event or presence before. The story of Iran’s nuclear issue is a shared déjà vu for this nation. The writer of this note was sitting behind a third or fourth-grade desk when the country’s news revolved around agency resolutions, enrichment negotiations, and the like.
Today, having entered the fourth decade of life, the news still revolves around these issues. Even Hassan Rouhani, Ali Larijani, and Saeed Jalili, whose names I heard as a child or teenager in the news, each found a different fate, but we are still going backwards.
Even a marathon race has a finish line, but Iran’s nuclear marathon seems endless. The only difference this time from the previous crisis is that back in the 2000s, the nuclear issue was the main focus, and there were merely concerns about regional issues. But today, with the story of the Ukraine war and all the events since October 7th, regional issues are seriously on the table.
The Assad regime in Syria collapsed, Lebanon cannot fight and has accepted a ceasefire, Iraq is concerned about its security and future due to the events in Syria, and now as I write these few lines, there is a possibility that a new war will begin in Yemen.
Iran is also in a very complex situation both domestically and internationally. Within its borders, dissatisfaction has accumulated, there are economic protests, and essential items like cars and housing are becoming increasingly unattainable. According to official reports, we are facing a range of imbalances, some of which manifest in intermittent power outages.
Regarding the electricity issue, we still don’t know specifically whether we are facing inaction from the fourteenth government or if this is also one of the gift packages placed in the saddlebags.
In the political arena, the government is trying to repair the internal political divide with a discourse of consensus and focus on untangling knots, but a mere radical minority in the parliamentary and media sectors sidelines this discourse.
One day they dream of the fall of the government, and another day they demand its impeachment. Considering that Iran-West negotiations will likely resume, this radical minority will become more active.
They are the ones who, during the time of Seyed Ebrahim Raisi, had an agenda of creating achievements for every small and large action and wanted to convince the public that progress could be made with the same approach. They frequently used keywords like ‘without JCPOA, without FATF,’ but as time passed and especially after the government changed, it became clear that this wordplay has no connection with reality.
The reality is bitter; Iran is under US sanctions and, to survive in this tense situation, must, for example, pay $3 to obtain a critical item that costs $1.
Because it cannot procure what it needs directly. If I were to list these instances, it would take up the entire issue of today’s newspaper, so we move on. Simply put, we have no money. This is not just a simple journalist saying this.
This was what the president mentioned in his first television interview. Pezeshkian said they say we inherited something good, but there’s no money in it. Since 2013 and the sidelining of Saeed Jalili from the negotiation discussions, Iran has always kept the window of diplomacy open, and currently, this opening remains.
The first session of talks between Iran and the European troika was held in early December in Geneva, and we are waiting for the date of the next session and the framework of upcoming negotiations to be determined soon. These negotiations will be much harder than the previous round because some of Iran’s playing cards are lost, and the country’s internal conditions are indifferent to this issue. Perhaps the voices of the opponents are loud, but the supporters of dialogue and exiting this situation also have loud voices and are few in number.
We can address this topic based on observations and comments that a large part of society has become numb to this issue, and it doesn’t make much difference to them. They are more concerned with making a living because their hope has been eroded in various ways. But we have a duty to consider what lies ahead. Currently, the most complicated situation is in the bilateral relations between Iran and Germany, and the tension between Iran and the UK and France is not that high.
Given that Iran needs to get out of the crisis, naturally, the issue of Israel, in addition to the accusations against Iran regarding Ukraine, will also be on the table from the other side. Whether Iran wants to negotiate on these matters or not depends on the decision in Tehran. Dialogue about Iran’s regional role and support for proxy groups means making tough decisions, meaning Iran accepts to review its regional policy. Considering that Iran’s allies in the region are non-state groups, evidence shows that states will also welcome this review because the existence of parallel and armed states will lead to instability, which is not desired by any capital.
For instance, recent comments in Iraq also show that the government and religious authority in this country do not have a very positive view of what is known as Iran-backed groups. A while ago, Ayatollah Sistani emphasized that weapons should only be in the hands of the Iraqi government. The statesmen of this country have also expressed in various statements that they do not want Iraq to be a battleground between Iran and other countries.
Recently, the issue of an attack on Israel from Iraqi soil was raised, and a serious warning came from the US to Baghdad that if this attack occurs, Iraq will face bombardment. Evidence shows that Iraq also does not have a negative view of changing these policies. It is true that the resistance forces attack Israel from Iraq, but it is the Iraqi government that must answer and suffer. We are in a situation where negotiation and making tough decisions are inevitable. Think of it as 1988, and we are forced to end the 8-year war with Iraq. Decisions of the same magnitude and even harder are ahead of us.
The next step after negotiating with the Europeans should be direct negotiation with the Trump administration because we will be dealing with them for the next four years. Europe alone is not enough for Iran, and according to experts, to work with the East, we also need to resolve our issues with the US. Regarding Israel, there is no need to recognize this regime, but we must reach a stage of managing tensions with them. Perhaps believing this issue is even harder than making these tough decisions. It is us who need the end of tensions and agreement because, for the other side, all the pillars of governance and the lives of its people are not tied to foreign policy.