Iran: To Talk or Not To Talk… That Is the Question
Asharq Al-Awsat, London, February 21
With the Trump administration sending mixed signals about its intentions toward Iran, the country’s leadership is once again divided over how to respond.
One faction is painting a grim picture in which the United States provides Israel with enough support to deliver a crushing blow to Iran, completing the defeats already inflicted on Tehran’s allies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. These defeats, the faction argues, would inspire opponents of the regime, both within and outside the country, to take to the streets and seize power, while the IRGC, suffering from low morale, would resort to what it did in Syria—fleeing under the economic crisis’s shadow to protect itself.
This faction contends that the current economic crisis has drained the will and energy of the regime’s dwindling support base, making regime change a real possibility for the first time.
So, how can such a perilous situation be navigated? Senior figures in this faction, including President Masoud Pezeshkian, are proposing to open talks aimed at preventing war and allowing for a cooling of tensions.
But who should they talk to? Talking to the United States is supposedly off-limits, according to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who cites a fatwa issued by the regime’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, as well as a law passed by the Islamic Majlis, Iran’s parliament, which enforces the ban.
The answer: the European trio of France, Germany, and Great Britain, which just so happens to have strained relations with Washington at the moment.
The theory is that the three countries would welcome a diplomatic breakthrough to restore some of the prestige they lost after President Donald Trump excluded them from his Ukraine peace initiative and his plans for the future of Gaza.
But what could be discussed without having to make concessions that would lead to a massive loss of face?
Give the gift of hope
We practice what we preach:
accurate, fearless journalism. But we can't do it alone.
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
Join us.
Support The Media Line. Save democracy.
The proposed “talks” would involve Iran offering to freeze its nuclear program for two to three years, after which it would decide its next steps. Iran is currently investing vast resources in a program that lacks a clear and justifiable civilian or military purpose.
In return, the EU trio would use the mechanism provided by UN Security Council Resolution 3221 to block any military action against Iran. That resolution expires in October, opening the door to unintended consequences.
Reaching an agreement with the Europeans would help ease pressure on Iran, inject some life into its moribund economy, and help prevent a widespread popular uprising.
Those promoting this analysis assume that the United States and Israel will simply stand by and watch as Iran recovers from the brink.
This analysis is countered by the faction loyal to the Supreme Leader, who insists that any appearance of weakness will accelerate the process of regime change.
His advice is to stand firm and prepare for war. The first step, according to this faction, is to build a war fund.
This is achieved by reducing the supply of foreign currency in the market, allowing the national currency to depreciate further. The Iranian rial, which was worth 650,000 to the dollar, now needs to fall to 900,000 to the dollar.
This was a trick used by the Allies when they invaded and occupied Iran during World War II. Because their expenses in Iran were in local currency, they were forced to devalue the rial by 50 percent.
Now, the Iranian regime is using this same tactic to increase the state’s purchasing power while reducing that of Iranian families, including military personnel and civil servants.
To partially compensate, key individuals needed for the war effort are being given exceptional bonuses.
The Supreme Leader, who controls the forces of law and order, has placed them on partial alert to preempt any potential rebellion.
This is accompanied by a widespread crackdown on potential opponents, particularly in Tehran, where reports of arbitrary arrests have surfaced.
All of this suggests that the head of the Iranian regime is not willing to accept another deal with America in order to distance himself voluntarily from Trump’s four-year term—a game that has led seven consecutive American presidents to a dead end and allowed the Islamic Republic to approach its golden jubilee.
Today, the question of whether to talk or not to talk is not just a matter for rival factions in Tehran but also for those forces that—rightly or wrongly—have concluded that there can be no regional peace and stability without persuading or forcing what François Mitterrand called “the great troublemaker” to change or be changed.
Amir Taheri (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)
