Broadcasting or War Headquarters
The assassination operation by Israel in Beirut, which resulted in the death of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Secretary-General of Hezbollah Lebanon, has given radical Iranian conservatives a pretext to lash out at President Pezeshkian and criticize him harshly.
What’s the connection? In reality, there is none. But they claim that if the new president, after the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas’s political bureau in Tehran, hadn’t spoken of peace and hadn’t emphasized that we have no quarrel, Israel wouldn’t have been emboldened to assassinate Nasrallah. In other words, because we said we are not into war and conflict and are seeking peace and reconciliation, they became bold.
They do not believe that these assassinations are meant to trap us into 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 unsubstantiated remarks to President Pezeshkian to strengthen their claims. The story isn’t limited to radical conservative political activists and newcomers like Amirhossein Sabati.
Because the national broadcaster has openly and officially joined this campaign, and not a day goes by without hearing from an expert or host condemning the war trap and emphasizing the necessity of a military response, which implicitly criticizes the president.
Just yesterday, before the 2 PM news on Channel One, under the pretext of reflecting the front pages and covers of newspapers, and as described by a young presenter as the ‘number one’ newspapers, they selected and highlighted some that criticized the term ‘war trap,’ even if they weren’t well-known, to basically present their own narrative through them. Naturally, they lingered more on the headline of ‘Kayhan,’ which directly pointed out and explicitly called for 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 forms it with duties such as determining the country’s defensive and security policies within the general policies set by the leadership. The members include: 1, 2, and 3, the heads of the three branches; 4 and 5, two representatives of the leadership; 6, the head of the joint chiefs of staff of the armed forces; 7, 8, and 9, the ministers of foreign affairs, intelligence, and interior; and 10, the head of the planning and budget organization.
Depending on the case, the highest-ranking army and IRGC officials or the relevant minister are also invited. If there is no mention of the head of the national broadcaster, it is because this media is not supposed to reflect its own stance but should instead articulate and reflect the outcome and output of this council as the policy of the system.
The composition of the council clearly shows how legitimate the radical conservatives’ and their platform, the national broadcaster’s, criticism of the government is. This story, despite all its bitterness, also has a humorous and ironic aspect.
That is, if Masoud Pezeshkian was supposed to think only and only about revenge for Haniyeh’s assassination on the very first day in office, why were the critics themselves oblivious to it and instead focused all their attention and concentration on ensuring that Pezeshkian’s key proposed ministers did not get approved?
In other words, in none of the headlines between Haniyeh’s assassination and the establishment of the new government do we see warnings that if no military attack is carried out, Israel will become audacious. Instead, all attention was focused on ensuring that controversial figures were not introduced, and if they were, they did not get approved.
In other words, their priority was not revenge for the martyr Haniyeh, as they claim these past few days, but rather not approving Pezeshkian’s key proposed ministers: Mohammadreza Zafarqandi for health and treatment, Ahmad Meydari for welfare and labor, and Ms. Farzaneh Sadegh for roads and urban development, and subsequently, Simayisaraf for science, which changed completely with the president’s speech on the day of the vote of confidence, as Pezeshkian’s references to the leadership allowed the entire cabinet to pass through the parliament.
The point is that such demands were not fundamentally raised, except that it was repeatedly said that revenge would be taken at the appropriate time, and no one was calling for haste. Suddenly, however, from the day the president went to New York and was criticized for emphasizing peace, Pezeshkian was attacked.
As if he was supposed to beat the drums of war at the United Nations. It is astonishing that they did not consider for a moment that even for the eight-year war, we use the term ‘sacred defense,’ and if we say war, we also add ‘imposed.’
At that time, we expected the president to talk about 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 order from the UN podium, which was established for peace? And we expected Pezeshkian not to speak of peace and to beat the drums of war, providing an excuse. The story of the alleged missile shipment to Russia for use in the attack on Ukraine wasn’t enough, and this case was added too. The current grudge against Masoud Pezeshkian over the assassination of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is reminiscent of the attack on Hassan Rouhani over the US withdrawal from the JCPOA by Donald Trump’s order, with the difference that in the JCPOA case, at least they had the excuse that they had warned the US would violate it and it would happen.
Although if the JCPOA was really to the US’s advantage, there was no reason to withdraw, and Trump’s action actually demonstrated the correctness of the JCPOA. Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that sincere and not deceitful fearmongers had concerns about violations, but in this case, what was Pezeshkian supposed to do that he didn’t? Let’s remember that although both Haniyeh and Nasrallah were the most prominent figures opposing Israel, and although the assassination of Hamas’s political bureau chief happened in Tehran, the two assassinations are legally different.
Because Israel officially did not take responsibility for Haniyeh’s assassination since it happened in Tehran, whereas in the Beirut suburb crime, they explicitly 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’s not as if they reached a specific opinion and the president blocked it.
When Mr. Pezeshkian said they asked Iran to exercise restraint to reach a ceasefire and did not fulfill their promise, it was not to use this statement as a club to beat him but to morally blame the Westerners.
The same thing happened in the JCPOA case when the then Central Bank governor criticized the Europeans’ delay and used the term ‘almost nothing’ for what we had materially gained at that time, not moving away from the shadow of war, to gain concessions. But for years, they have used this to say the JCPOA had no achievements, while one of its only tangible achievements was the ability to sell weapons, which they can no longer deny and have acknowledged.
To understand the grudge and distance between the national broadcaster and Pezeshkian, it is worth noting that on Sunday, again in the 2 PM news, they first broadcast the condolence message of the former First Vice President Mohammadreza Mokhber and then that of the current First Vice President Mohammadreza Aref. Although Mr. Mokhber has been appointed as an assistant to the leader, preferring the former First Vice President over the current one in a news segment is like reading the news of three former living presidents before the current president.
This, of course, doesn’t happen because the television is now not on good terms with any of the three former living presidents. This note wants to say that the national broadcaster should not be an anti-government headquarters because the world knows the Islamic Republic through the government of the Islamic Republic, and the national broadcaster 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 emotional decisions because it is still a serious option that a trap may have been set, even if they do not like the term ‘war trap.’
In a television where showing musical instruments is banned and they hide musical instruments behind a vase, they show an instrument and with its jarring sound, annoy many people. The instrument of opposition to a government that does not please the organization’s managers is more felt when the name of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has become a code word for attacking the president himself.