Washington accepts the new round of negotiations scheduled for Friday, but raises its tone against Tehran: Trump claims responsibility for the Iranian nuclear attack, accuses the regime of a repression that cost over 60,000 deaths and indicates the Pasdaran as the true center of power and export of regional terrorism.
In the midst of a diplomatic phase marked by sudden openings and equally abrupt slowdowns, the president of the United States Donald Trump raised the level of verbal confrontation with again Tehran. In an interview given Wednesday to NBC Newsthe head of the White House said that the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameneishould “be very worried”, despite the ongoing talks between Washington And Tehran about a possible agreement. «I would say he should be very worried, yes. It should be. As you know, they are negotiating with us», he declared Trumpsuggesting that the negotiations are taking place under military and political pressure that is anything but theoretical. During the interview, the president claimed the support of the United States to anti-regime protesters and attributed the reduction of the Iranian strategic threat in the Middle East to direct American action. «Look, that country is a disaster right now because of us. We entered, we destroyed their nuclear. We have peace in Middle East. If I hadn’t destroyed their nuclear, think about it, if we hadn’t destroyed that nuclear, we wouldn’t have had peace Middle East because the Arab countries could never have done it. They were very, very afraid of Iran. They are no longer afraid of Iran», he argued.
Trump he then made direct reference to the use of strategic assets of the US air force, describing the operation as a total success. “Those beautiful B-2 bombers went into action, hit their target, every single bomb, and annihilated it, and for that reason – they would have a nuclear weapon within a month – that was a big threat. They won’t have it anymore,” he said. Invited to explain why to continue negotiating if the Iranian nuclear program would be annihilated, the president left open the hypothesis of a new escalation if Tehran tried to reactivate it. “Well, I hear they’re doing it, and if they do it, and I let them know, we’ll send them back and they’ll do their job again,” he said. Second TrumpIranian attempts to recover or revive the program would have already been intercepted. «They tried to return to the site. They couldn’t even get close. There was total destruction. But they were thinking of opening a new site in another part of the country. We found out. I said: “If you do, we will do very bad things to you”he declared.
The hard line claimed by White House it fits into the profile of a regime which, on an internal and regional level, is accused of systemic violence. According to estimates collected from international sources and Iranian opposition networks, the repression conducted by the Islamic Republic in recent years it would have caused over 60,000 deathsincluding demonstrators, political opponents and civilians affected in the various waves of protests suffocated with the use of weapons. A toll that includes summary executions, forced disappearances, torture and security operations conducted on a national scale. At the center of this repressive apparatus and the external projection of violence lies the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corpsi Pasdarantrue military, political and economic pillar of the Islamic Republic. The Corps does not answer to the government or civil institutions, but directly to the Supreme Leaderwhich controls the chain of command and directs its strategic choices. Through its joints – fland force, navy, aerospace component and intelligence – i Pasdaran they play a decisive role both in the repression of internal dissent and in the “export of the revolution” beyond national borders. A key role is played by Go Qudsan elite unit in charge of external operations and the main operational hub between Tehran and the allied militias in the region, through which Iran provides training, armaments, intelligence and financial support to Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and Hamas.
This architecture makes the chain of command extremely vertical and impervious to any democratic control: crucial decisions, from nuclear power to the ballistic missile program up to regional alliances, remain concentrated in the hands of Supreme Leader and the systems directly subordinated to it. It is this intertwining of internal repression, the military apparatus and external projection of violence that, according to Washingtonmakes it impossible to separate the nuclear dossier from the overall behavior of the Iranian regime. The interview by Trump arrived while the government of United States aannounced that he had accepted the request of some Arab countries to resume talks with Iran on Friday Omana few hours after announcing the cancellation of the meeting. The decision would have been made after a message sent by Washington to Tehranin which the United States they rejected Iranian requests to change the location and format of the negotiations, initially planned to Istanbul. “We told them: ‘It’s either this or nothing.’ And they said, ‘OK, then nothing,'” a senior American official said, adding: “We want to reach a real agreement quickly, otherwise people will look for other options.” From the point of view of TehranHowever, some red lines remain impassable. The ballistic missile program and the network of regional alliances represent pillars of the Iranian deterrence strategy: giving it up would mean directly affecting the power architecture of the regime and the central role of Pasdaran in the command system of the Islamic Republic. In light of these premises, the negotiation path appears anything but promising. The positions remain rigidly opposed: on the one hand Washington demands guarantees that affect the heart of the Iranian power system, on the other Tehran considers the pillars of its military deterrence and regional projection untouchable. In this context, the new round of talks risks being reduced to a formal passage rather than a real turning point. With the red lines already drawn and no visible room for substantive compromise, the hypothesis of a failure of the negotiations appears today not only plausible, but almost inevitable.
