Broadcasting or War Headquarters
The assassination operation by Israel in Beirut, which led to the death of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah Lebanon, has given radical Iranian conservatives an excuse to attack President Pezeshkian and criticize him harshly.
What is the connection to the issue? In reality, there is none. However, they claim that if the new president had not spoken of peace after the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas’s political bureau in Tehran, and had not emphasized that we are not in conflict, Israel would not have become emboldened and would not have assassinated Nasrallah. In other words, because we said we are not for war and conflict and seek peace and reconciliation, they became bold.
They do not believe that these assassinations are meant to trap us in war, and that we should have gone to war with Israel the day after Haniyeh’s assassination. Some, apart from official and confirmed statements, also attribute unfounded sentences to President Pezeshkian to strengthen their claims. This story is not limited to radical conservative political activists and newcomers like Amirhossein Sabati.
Because the broadcasting organization has openly and officially joined this campaign, and not a day goes by without hearing from an expert or host denouncing the war trap and emphasizing the necessity of a military response, which implicitly criticizes the president.
Just yesterday, before the 2 PM news on the first channel, under the pretext of reflecting the front pages and covers of newspapers, and in the words of a young host, the ‘number one newspapers,’ they selected and highlighted some that criticized the term ‘war trap,’ even if they were not well-known, to effectively present their own ideas through their words. Naturally, they lingered more on the headline of Kayhan, which directly referred to and explicitly demanded a military attack.
These actions occur while, according to Article 176 of the Constitution, the presidency of the Supreme National Security Council is with the president, who is tasked with setting the country’s defensive and security policies within the framework of the general policies determined by the leader. Its members include the heads of the three branches, two representatives of the leader, the chief of staff of the armed forces, the ministers of foreign affairs, intelligence, and interior, and the head of the budget and planning organization.
Depending on the case, the highest-ranking military and IRGC officials or the relevant minister are also invited. If there is no mention of the head of the broadcasting organization, it is because this media is not supposed to reflect its own stance but should explain and reflect the outcome of this council as the system’s policy.
The composition of the council clearly shows how valid the criticism of the hardliners and their platform, the broadcasting organization, against the government is. This story, despite all its bitterness, also has an amusing and ironic aspect.
If Masoud Pezeshkian was supposed to think only of revenge for Haniyeh’s assassination from the first day of his establishment, why did the critics themselves ignore it and focus all their attention and concentration on preventing Pezeshkian’s key proposed ministers from getting votes?
In other words, in none of the headlines between Haniyeh’s assassination and the establishment of the new government do we see a warning that if a military attack is not carried out, Israel will become brazen. Rather, the entire focus was on ensuring that those with differing views were not introduced, and if they were, they did not receive votes.
In other words, their priority was not avenging the martyr Haniyeh based on what they claim in these few days, but rather not voting for the key proposed ministers Mohammad Reza Zafarghandi for health and treatment, Ahmad Meidari for welfare and labor, and Mrs. Farzaneh Sadegh for roads and urban development, and subsequently Simayesaraf for science, which, of course, changed completely with the president’s speech on the day of the vote of confidence, as Dr. Pezeshkian’s references to the leader allowed the entire cabinet to pass through parliament.
The point is that such demands were never raised, except that it was repeatedly said that revenge would be taken at the right time, and no one asked for haste. Suddenly, however, from the day the president went to New York and emphasized normalcy and peace, they attacked Pezeshkian.
As if he should have beaten the drums of war at the United Nations. Surprisingly, they did not think for a moment that even for the eight-year war, we use the term ‘sacred defense,’ and if we do say war, we also mention it as imposed.
At that time, we expected the president to speak of war instead of peace.
Especially from the platform of an organization established for peace and preventing war. Isn’t the main criticism of the criminal Netanyahu that he issued the war command from the UN podium, which was established for peace, and yet we expect Pezeshkian not to speak of peace and beat the drums of war, providing an excuse? Wasn’t the claim of sending missiles to Russia for use in the invasion of Ukraine enough, and now this issue is added? The current attack on Masoud Pezeshkian under the pretext of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s assassination is reminiscent of the attack on Hassan Rouhani due to the US withdrawal from the JCPOA by Donald Trump’s order, with the difference that in the JCPOA case, at least they had the justification that they had warned the US would violate it and that it would happen.
Although if the JCPOA was truly beneficial to the US, there would have been no reason to withdraw, and Trump’s action actually indicated the correctness of the JCPOA. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the sincere ones, not the deceitful liars, feared its violation. But in this case, what was Pezeshkian supposed to do that he didn’t? Keep in mind that while both Haniyeh and Nasrallah were the most prominent figures opposing Israel, and although the assassination of Hamas’s political bureau chief occurred in Tehran, the two assassinations are legally different.
Because Israel officially did not take responsibility for Haniyeh’s assassination since it happened in Tehran, and on the contrary, in the Dahiya Beirut crime, they openly accepted responsibility and even boasted about it.
The point is that the reaction to Haniyeh’s assassination required a decision in the Supreme National Security Council, and it is not as though a specific opinion was reached and the president obstructed it.
When Mr. Pezeshkian said that they asked Iran to exercise restraint to reach a ceasefire in return, and they did not keep their promise, it was not for this statement to become a stick to beat him with, but to morally reproach the Westerners.
The same thing happened in the JCPOA case when the then Central Bank governor used the term ‘almost nothing’ to criticize the Europeans’ delay for what we had materially gained at that time, not to distance the shadow of war, to gain concessions. But for years, they have been using this to say the JCPOA had no achievements, while one of its benefits was the ability to sell weapons, which they can no longer deny and have acknowledged.
To understand how deep the grudge and distance between the broadcasting organization and Pezeshkian is, it is worth noting that on Sunday, in the same 2 PM news, they first broadcast the condolence message of Mohammad Reza Mokhber, the former first deputy, and then Mohammad Reza Aref, the current first deputy. Although Mr. Mokhber has been appointed as the leader’s assistant, preferring the former first deputy over the current one in a news segment is like reading the news of three former presidents first and then the current president.
This, of course, does not happen because television is not on good terms with any of the three former living presidents. This note intends to say that the broadcasting organization should not be an anti-government headquarters because the world knows the Islamic Republic by its government, and the broadcasting organization of the Islamic Republic cannot stand against the government of the Islamic Republic. It is obvious that the high-ranking officials of the system cannot make decisions in excitement because the possibility remains that a trap has been set, even if they do not like the term ‘war trap.’
In a television where showing musical instruments is forbidden and they hide them behind vases, they show one instrument and annoy many people with its jarring sound. The instrument of opposition to a government that is not to the liking of the organization’s managers is more felt when the name of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah becomes a code for attacking the president himself.