Endless Nuclear Marathon and the Shattered Dreams of a Nation

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 a sense of familiarity, meaning a new event occurs or a person enters a new place but thinks they have already experienced this event and presence. The nuclear story of Iran is a shared déjà vu for this nation. The writer of this note was sitting behind a desk in third or fourth grade 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 backward.

A marathon race has a finish line, but Iran’s nuclear marathon seems never-ending. The only difference this time from the onset of the crisis compared to the last time is that back when it began, which dates back to 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 after October 7th, regional issues are seriously on the table.

Assad’s government in Syria has fallen, Lebanon cannot wage war and has agreed to a ceasefire, Iraq is concerned about its security and future due to the events in Syria, and as I write these few lines, there is a possibility of a new war starting in Yemen.

Iran is also experiencing a very complex situation both domestically and internationally. Inside the borders, discontent has accumulated, there are economic protests, and essentials like cars and housing are becoming increasingly unattainable. According to official reports, we are facing a range of imbalances, some of which manifest in the intermittent power cuts.

Regarding the electricity issue, it is still unclear whether we are dealing with negligence from the fourteenth government or if this is also one of the gift packages placed in the saddlebags of the saddled horse.

In the political arena, the government is trying to mend the internal political divide with a discourse of consensus and focus on untangling the knots, but a mere radical minority in the parliamentary and media domains sidelines this discourse.

One day, it speaks of its dream for the fall of the government, and another day, it demands its impeachment. Given that Iran-West negotiations will likely resume, this radical minority will become more active.

They are the ones who, during the era of Ebrahim Raisi, had an agenda of purely creating achievements for every small and large action and wanted to convince the public that progress could be made with this same approach. They frequently used the keywords ‘without JCPOA, without FATF,’ but as time passed, especially after the government changed, it became clear that this wordplay had no connection to reality.

The reality is bitter. Iran is under U.S. sanctions and, to survive in this tense situation, has to, for example, pay $3 for a crucial commodity that costs $1.

Because it cannot procure what it needs directly. If I were to list these matters, it would take up the entire issue of today’s newspaper, so we will skip it. Simply put, we have no money. This is not something a simple journalist says.

This was said by the president in his first televised interview. It was said that we inherited something good, but there is 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 dialogue session 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 the upcoming negotiations to be determined soon. These negotiations will be much tougher than the previous round because some of Iran’s bargaining chips have been lost, and the country’s internal conditions are indifferent to this issue. Perhaps the voices of opponents are loud, but supporters of dialogue and exiting this situation also have loud voices and are few in number.

We can address this issue based on observations and opinions that a large part of society has become numb to this issue and it does not make much difference to them. They are more concerned with making a living because their hope has been lost in various ways. But we have a duty to consider what lies ahead. Currently, the most complex situation is in the bilateral relations between Iran and Germany, and the tension between Iran and the UK and France is not as high.

Given that Iran needs to exit the crisis, naturally, the Israel issue, in addition to the accusations against Iran regarding Ukraine, will be on the table from the opposite side. Whether Iran wants to negotiate on these matters or not depends on decisions in Tehran. Negotiating over Iran’s regional role and support for proxy groups means making tough decisions, meaning Iran accepts to review its regional policy. Given that Iran’s allies in the region are non-state groups, evidence shows that states will also welcome this revision because the existence of parallel and armed governments will lead to instability, which is not desired by any capital.

For instance, recent statements 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-supported groups. A while ago, Ayatollah Sistani emphasized that weapons should only be in the hands of the Iraqi government. Politicians in this country have also stated in various comments 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. A serious warning came from the U.S. to Baghdad that if this attack occurs, Iraq will face bombing. Evidence shows that Iraq does not have a negative view of changing these policies. It is true that resistance forces attack Israel from Iraq, but it is the Iraqi government that must be accountable and suffer the consequences. We are in a situation where negotiation and making tough decisions are inevitable. Imagine it is 1988, and we are forced to end the 8-year war with Iraq. Decisions of the same magnitude and even tougher 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 sufficient for Iran, and according to experts, to work with the East, we also need to resolve our issues with the U.S. 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. We are the ones who need to end the tension and reach an agreement because the other side’s governance and the life of its nation are not tied to foreign policy.