Marathon of Endless Cores and Lost Dreams of a Nation

The endless marathon of lost hopes and dreams of a nation.

The endless marathon of lost hopes and dreams of a nation.

Déjà vu means familiarity, meaning something new happens or a person enters a new place but feels like they have experienced this event and presence before. The story of Iran’s nuclear issues is the common déjà vu of this nation. The writer of this note sits behind a third or fourth-grade classroom desk, where the news revolves around the axis of agency resolutions, enrichment negotiations, and the like.

Today, entering the fourth decade of life, news still revolves around these same issues. Even Hassan Rouhani, Ali Larijani, and Saeed Jalili, whose names I used to hear in the news as a child or teenager, have each found a different fate. But we are still in the process of going backward.

A marathon also has a finish line, but it seems like Iran’s nuclear marathon never ends. The only difference this time from the onset of the crisis in the 1980s is that back then, the nuclear issue was the main focus, with just concerns about regional issues. But today, with the story of the war in Ukraine and all events post-October 7th, regional issues are being seriously addressed.

The Assad government in Syria has fallen, Lebanon is unable to engage in war and is on the brink of conflict. Iraq is concerned about its security and future in light of the events in Syria. As I write these few lines, there is a possibility of a new war starting in Yemen.

Iran is also facing a very complex situation internally and externally. There is accumulated dissatisfaction within the borders, economic protests, and essential goods such as cars and housing becoming increasingly unattainable. Official news reports indicate various irregularities, some of which manifest in intermittent power outages.

Regarding the issue of electricity, it is still unclear whether we are facing the consequences of the 14th government’s policies or if this is another gift package left behind by the previous administrations.

In the political arena, the government is trying to mend internal political divides with a discourse of unity and focus on unraveling knots. However, a vocal minority in the parliamentary and media spheres sidelines this discourse.

One day, the dream of overthrowing the government is mentioned by the physicians, and another day calls for his impeachment. Given the likelihood of renewed negotiations between Iran and the West, this vocal minority is expected to become more active.

They were the ones who, during the era of Seyyed Abraheem Raeisi, had a directive based on achieving pure achievement for every small and large action and wanted to make the public believe that progress could be made with this same directive. They used the keywords like without JCPOA, without FATF a lot, but as time passed, especially after the change of government, it became clear that this game with words has no connection to reality.

The bitter reality is that Iran is under US sanctions and to survive in this tense situation, for example, it must spend $3 to buy an important item that costs $1.

Because it cannot directly procure what it needs, if I want to list these things, it takes up the entire front page of today’s newspaper. To put it simply, we don’t have money, this is what simple journalism doesn’t say.

This was a statement made by the president in his first televised interview. Doctors say we have inherited something good, but there is no money in it. Since 2013, and with the sidelining of Saeed Jalili from the negotiations, Iran has always kept the window of diplomacy open. This window is still open today.

The first round of talks between Iran and the European Troika took place in early December in Geneva, and we are waiting for the date of the next meeting and the framework of the upcoming negotiations to be determined soon. These negotiations will be much more difficult than the previous round because Iran has lost some of its bargaining chips and the domestic situation in the country is indifferent to this issue. Perhaps the voices of opponents are loud, but supporters of dialogue and exit from this situation also have a loud voice and a small number of people.

Based on observations and opinions, we can address the fact that a large part of society has also become indifferent to this issue and it does not make much difference to them. They are more focused on 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 complicated situation in bilateral relations is between Iran and Germany, and the tension between Iran and the UK and France is not as high.

Considering that Iran needs to get out of the crisis, naturally the issue of Israel will also be put on the table by the other side, in addition to the accusations against Iran regarding Ukraine. Whether Iran wants to negotiate on these issues or not will be decided in Tehran. Discussing Iran’s regional role and supporting proxy groups means making tough decisions. It means Iran accepting to reconsider its regional policies. Since Iran’s allies in the region are non-state groups, evidence suggests that governments will also welcome this reconsideration, as the presence of parallel armed governments will lead to instability that no capital desires.

For example, recent statements in Iraq also indicate that the government and authorities in this country do not have a positive view towards what is known as Iran-backed groups. Ayatollah Sistani emphasized some time ago that weapons should only be in the hands of the Iraqi government. The officials of this country have also raised this issue in various statements, expressing that they do not want Iraq to become a battleground between Iran and other countries.

Some time ago, the issue of an attack on Israel from Iraqi soil was raised. A serious warning from the United States reached Baghdad that if this attack were to occur, Iraq would face heavy bombardment. Evidence shows that Iraq also does not have a negative view towards changing these policies. It is true that the resistance forces may attack Israel from Iraq, but it is the Iraqi government that must be accountable and face the consequences. We are in a situation where negotiation and making tough decisions are inevitable. Think about the year 1988 when we were forced to end the 8-year war with Iraq. Decisions as challenging as that, or even more so, lie ahead of us.

The next step should be direct negotiations with the Trump administration, as 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 need to resolve our issues with America. Regarding Israel, there is no need to identify this regime; rather, we should move towards managing tensions with them. Even though believing in this may be harder than making tough decisions, we are the ones who need to end the tension and reach an agreement, as the other party has all aspects of governance and the livelihood of its people tied to its foreign policy.