Current Affairs

There was something that didn’t quite fit in with the news conference given by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. The niceties of the press conference were mixed with a statement from the state that rambled on with threats and then on to international law. The elements that were most talked about were those of international law, but the threats kept coming. It was as though the statement read was one of downright hostility, followed by one of conciliatory argument determined by UN charters.

There is a split in Iran, the language of the foreign minister reflected that split, one of governance and one that is theocratic. Of course the arguments reflect the split between the civilian government and the theocratic, but the ideology steeped in damnation and revenge was mostly treated as bluster, but the ideology of the state is slowly changing and the law makers have steeped their arguments in International law. Amir Saeid Iravani, Iran’s representative to the United Nations said that Iran had the right to defend itself against “blatant US aggression” before arguing that the timing, nature and scale of “Iran’s proportionate response” will be decided by the Iranian armed forces.

But there was a widening of the argument that apart from Israel and the US, Amir Saedi Iravani said that the “silence, double standards and complicity of international organisations and some Western countries including France and the UK, are equally reprehensible.” The European diplomats at the weekend had not come up with anything according to the Iranian state, but the ideology that circulates through Iran, mixed with an element of paranoia created an argument that empowered his argument to include the United Kingdom and France. The widening of the argument to include the United Kingdom and France is very much towing the line of a state that is hitting out at any target.

Trump in his declaration that the US had hit sites across Iran stood in the White House detailing that Iran would be a “lot easier to hit” in  future . But the resources that the US used were wholly state side, which meant that Europe was very much out of the loop of the US attack on the Iranian state.  What had been obvious was that Trump wanted control of the narrative, his disruptive argument that Iran should be speaking to the US when Europe was in talks with the Iranians, is a realisation that control of the arguments in this conflict are determined by a US prerogative of America first, whatever concessions the Europeans get out of the Iranian state.

It could be construed that Europe is very much out of the loop and that Iran’s attempt to split the consensus between the Europeans and the US was very much in the minds of the Iranian negotiators. But the argument that Iran can find an ally is very much in the making. Abbas Araghchi is travelling to Moscow looking for a way forward. The Russian ambassador  to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya said that the US had opened “a Pandora box” and the United States is “clearly not interested in diplomacy.”

Steve Rosenberg BBC Moscow correspondent said that Araghchi would get a welcome in Russia, but the idea of military assistance was beyond the remit of the Strategic Partnership Agreement between the two states. But Russia has a relationship with Israel as well as Iran and the Russian government is trying to balance these relationships because of the strong Russian diaspora in Israel, and the 3,000 Russian personnel working in Iran’s nuclear power stations.  The statements coming from Russia was very much telegraphed last week, where at the St Petersburg conference the Russians made clear their argument that they would not be getting involved in any defence pact that the state had made with Iran.

David Lamy, Britain’s foreign minister, said that all options are on the table, but after five rounds of talks with the US special representative Steve Witkoff and seven rounds of talks with Europe, Iran had not explained why it is enriching to 60%. He went on to say that Iran talking with the Western powers had been going on for 20 years and there had been very few arguments why Iran would be enriching Uranium to that degree. Whether the US strikes had been successful, he argued that it had put the Iranian ambition to build a bomb back by 2-3 years.   

But the diplomacy is shaping up to one of being out manoeuvred by the Iranian state. Mouab Yezidi Hamini a professor at Tehran University, said that “Iran needs to hit back.” To keep the population safe, it is imperative that the Iranians hit back to “inflict pain” on the US. He went on to say the state was not enriching uranium to 60%, it is fake news. “If you talk to the IAEA, they do not have proof that Iran is trying to build a bomb.”

But the message coming from the US is one that is confused. Yesterday the US defence minister Pete Hesgeth, the vice president JD Vance and foreign minister Rubio, all argued that the US did not want regime change, they wanted Iran to come to the table. But president Trump on truth social his media site argued for regime change. He said that “if Iran didn’t want to be great again then the regime should be changed.” Supporters of the president said that he really did not mean regime change, but was gambling on getting the Iranian regime back to the table and re-start negotiations.

But it will be Ayatollah Khamenei who will be trying to work out what the Iranian state does next. “khamenei’s next moves will be the most consequential not just for his own survival, but how he will go down in history,” said Sanam Vakil, director of MENA at Chatham House. But whether the arguments coming from the Iranian state eminnate from Ayatollah Khamenei or not, is crucial to the Iranians strategic argument in the future. The Iranian parliament has already voted on what it believes should be Irans strategic move and that is the closure of the state of Hormuz. Whether this will happen or not is up to the supreme leader.

Hamidreza Aziz, of the Middle East Council argues that “this is not a war that Iran wants, but we are […]seeing arguments […] that the image of Iran as a strong country [and] as a regional power,  “that [the state] has been shaken so dramatically that it requires a response.” The Iranians now view the negotiations with Steve Witkoff, (now on the back burner), as an elaborate deception by the US, which Iran now views the US diplomatic path as a surrender of its sovereignty, therefore it must respond to the US bombings.

The failure of the talks were because the Iranians were looking for more flexibility, but the US side argued that there should be zero nuclear enrichment. Though not directly involved Gulf countries warned the Iranians that the Israelis were serious in their sabre rattling and they needed to make concessions in the talks with the US. All of it telegraphed that Israel and the US were going to attack.

The miscalculations by the Iranian regime have been huge and the idea that the state could make an argument that it had not been warned is negligible. Ali Vaez argues that the likelihood of regime change is possible if the situation worsens, the ideology of the regime has been outpaced, and if the state misreads its next move “some of the  [regime] may not be willing to pay the price that the supreme leader wants.”

President Trump who said he “wanted a deal with Iran” rather than “bombing the hell out of it” seems to have changed his mind. The tense relationship with Israel that he had at the beginning of Israels campaign bombing the enrichment sites and gaining air superiority, has moved the US towards the Israeli argument. He described Iran as “the bully of the Middle East” determined to build a bomb, which was not the assessment of US intelligence until Sunday. But there are forces at home for the US leader to take into consideration, he is coming under pressure from lawmakers who say he acted without congressional approval, and supporters who argue that he has broken his electoral promise not to involve America in any more lengthy wars.

But more than anything, it is Netanyahu’s historic argument that has dragged the president of the United States into this war. At the beginning, it was not so much that the US president gave Netanyahu the green light it was very much the argument you are on your own if you do this. Other presidents and Netanyahu’s own generals have been holding the Israeli prime minister back from conflict with Iran, but the attacks by the IDF were obviously going to happen once Assad fell and the Syrian air force was wiped out by the IDF. It was very much the failure of the Iranian leadership not to look at the larger picture that challenged the Iranian failure to manage the events.

Iran now is on the diplomatic offensive, it argues that the IAEA does not believe that the Iranians were enriching Uranium for a bomb, but the argument is very much an argument of violations of the JCPOA and UN resolutions. It feels that it has a right to retaliate, but Iran is very much trying to find an outcome determined by diplomacy. Whether Iran will go down the line of the Solemani crisis and take a more considered retaliation is a question that is likely to be the story in the coming days.