Radio and Television or a military base
The Israeli assassination operation in Beirut, which led to the killing of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah in Lebanon, provided an excuse for Iranian radical fundamentalists to criticize the President and accuse him of incompetence.
There is actually no connection between the two incidents, but some claim that if the new President, after the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas’ political office in Tehran, had not emphasized the statement that ‘We do not seek war’ and had not made it clear that Israel would not dare to assassinate Nasrallah, then they would have been more bold. In other words, because we said we are not warmongers and seek peace and reconciliation, they became emboldened.
They do not believe these assassinations are meant to trap us in the trap of war. The day after the assassination of Haniyeh, we would have been at war with Israel. Some also attribute unofficial and unconfirmed statements to the President to increase the intensity of their claims. This story, however, is not limited to political activists of radical fundamentalism and supporters of Norouz like Amir Hossein Sabety.
As the state television has openly and officially joined this campaign, it is not a day that we do not hear condemnation of war from the mouths of experts or presenters, and in case of military response, which also includes hidden criticism of the president.
Just yesterday, before the news at 14:00 on the first channel of the television, they selected and highlighted some newspapers based on the excuse of reflecting the front pages and covers of newspapers, and according to the interpretation of the young presenter, some of the newspapers had criticized the war interpretation, although they were not well-known enough to actually express their views and of course delayed more on the headline of Kayhan, which had a direct reference and explicitly called for a military attack.
These behaviors are taking place while, according to Article 176 of the Constitution, the Supreme National Security Council is chaired by the President, which is tasked with determining the country’s defense and security policies within the framework of the general policies set by the leadership and its members include the President, the Speaker of Parliament, the Chief Justice, two representatives of the Supreme Leader, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, and the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Interior, as well as the Head of Planning and Budget.
According to the case, the highest ranking military and IRGC officials or the relevant minister are also invited. If there is no news about the head of the IRIB, it is because this media outlet is not supposed to reflect its position, but rather to implement and reflect the output of this council as the policy of the system.
The composition of the council clearly shows how harsh critics and their tribune, the IRIB, are towards the government. This story, with all its bitterness, also has a funny and sarcastic aspect.
If Masoud Pezeshkian really should have only sought revenge for the assassination of Hanif on the very first day, why were the critics unaware of that and did not focus all their attention on not voting for the proposed prominent ministers of the Pezeshkian?
In other words, we do not see any headlines warning about the gap between the assassination of Ismail Hanif and the establishment of the new government, cautioning that if a military attack is not carried out, Israel will become insolent. On the contrary, all attention is focused on not introducing the biased individuals, and if they are introduced, not voting for them.
In other words, their priority was not seeking revenge for the martyrdom of General Soleimani, as they claim these days, but rather not giving their vote of confidence to the proposed prominent ministers: Mohammad Reza Zafarqandi for Health, Ahmad Meidari for Welfare and Labor, and Ms. Farzaneh Sadegh for Roads and Urban Development. And in the next rank, they opposed the appointment of the Minister of Science, with, of course, the atmosphere completely changing on the day of the vote of confidence with the President’s speech, as indicated by the doctors’ references to the leadership of the entire cabinet surpassing the Parliament.
The purpose was not to raise such demands at all, except that it was repeatedly said that revenge would be taken at the appropriate time, and no one was calling for haste. However, since the day the President went to New York and emphasized the conventional peace over war, the doctors were surprised.
It was as if he was expected to beat the drums of war at the United Nations. It’s surprising that they didn’t think for a moment that we even use the term ‘Sacred Defense’ for an eight-year war, and if we say we bring an imposed war, it continues.
At that time, we expected the President to speak of war instead of peace.
That too is from the tribune of an organization set up for peace and prevention of war, the most important criticism of the criminal Netanyahu is that he issued the war command from the pulpit of the United Nations, which was established for peace. At that time, we expected physicians not to talk about peace and beat the drums of war, making excuses that the story of sending missiles to Russia for use in invading Ukraine was insufficient. This clause also added the current obsession against Masoud, the physicians, under the pretext of the assassination of Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah, reminiscent of the attack on Hassan Rouhani due to the US withdrawal from the JCPOA at the behest of Donald Trump, with the difference that in the case of the US withdrawal from the JCPOA, they had at least this justification that they had warned that America would violate it and this would happen.
Although if the JCPOA really benefited the United States, they had no reason to withdraw. In fact, Trump’s actions indicated the correctness of the JCPOA. However, it cannot be denied that both the honest and the deceitful had violations, but in this paragraph, what should physicians have done that they did not have in mind? Even though both Haniyeh and Nasrallah were the most prominent figures in confronting Israel, and although the assassination of the political office chief of Hamas in Tehran took place, the two assassinations are legally different.
Because Israel did not officially respond to the Haniyeh assassination as it happened in Tehran, and in contrast, they explicitly accepted responsibility for the crime in the southern suburbs of Beirut and even boasted about it.
The point is that the reaction to the Haniyeh assassination required a decision in the Supreme National Security Council and it is not that they seemed to have come to a specific conclusion, and the president did not prevent it.
When Mr. Pizkishan said they had asked Iran to restrain itself so that we wouldn’t get to the point of escalation, and they did not fulfill their promise, it was not to just brush off that statement and hit him on the head with it, but rather to morally criticize the West.
The same incident happened in the case of the JCPOA when the then Central Bank governor criticized European delays, using almost no interpretation for what we had achieved materially at that time, not just avoiding the shadow of war, to gain some points. But they have known this for years to claim that the JCPOA had no achievements, while its only achievement was the possibility of selling weapons, which they can no longer deny and have admitted.
To understand the bitterness and distance of the Voice and Vision organization from the medical community, it is worth mentioning that on Monday, in the same news broadcast at 14:00, they first aired the condolences message of Mohammad Reza Mokhber, former First Deputy, and then the message of Mohammad Reza Aref, current First Deputy. It is true that Mr. Mokhber has been appointed as the Leader’s assistant, but the preference for the former First Deputy over the current First Deputy in the news section is like first reading the news of three former presidents still alive and then moving on to the current president.
This incident does not happen because the television is not currently at odds with any of the three former presidents over the issue of Mehr. This note wants to say that the state television should not be an anti-government headquarters because the world recognizes the Islamic Republic with the government of the Islamic Republic, and the Islamic Republic’s state television cannot stand against the government of the Islamic Republic. It is obvious that senior officials cannot make impulsive decisions because this serious option may still be spread like a trap, even if they do not like the interpretation of the specter of war.
In a television where showing musical instruments is prohibited and they hide the musical instrument behind a flowerpot, they show a musical instrument and disturb many people with its harsh sound. The instrument opposes a government that is not to the liking of the organization’s managers. The situation gets worse when the name of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah turns into a secret code for attacking the president.
