-
The Crisis of Nuclear Negotiations and Khamenei's Dual Role
News related to the nuclear negotiations is plunging the Iranian regime into a whirlpool of internal and external crises. These crises are not limited to a specific faction within the government but encompass the entire regime, worsening over time. Signs of these crises can be seen in the speeches of Friday prayer leaders, responses from parliamentary deputies, and contradictions in officials' statements.
The Major Challenge for the Regime
The Iranian regime established its identity from the beginning with the creation of the Revolutionary Guard and fiery slogans built on animosity towards other countries and expanding influence in the region. Slogans like "the Great Satan" regarding the United States and hostility towards it have made negotiations with this country a significant challenge for the regime. Pressures from economic sanctions, international isolation, failures in the region, and military threats have pushed it to the negotiation table. This contradiction between slogans and actions has placed the regime in a difficult position, exacerbated by the negotiations in Oman. The ongoing nuclear talks, whether direct or indirect, resemble a double-edged sword for the regime. Accepting negotiations means retreating from fiery slogans, seen as a display of weakness before the "enemy." Conversely, rejecting them may lead to increased sanctions, greater isolation, or even military conflict. This duality deepens internal divisions within the regime and presents new crises.
Internal Disagreements in Speeches and Parliament
The speeches of Friday prayer leaders on April 22, 2024, clearly display these crises. Ahmad Alamolhoda, Khamenei's representative in Mashhad, criticized the negotiations, citing the previous agreement (the nuclear deal) and expressed distrust of the United States. He scoffed at the negotiations, stating that America had not fulfilled its commitments. These statements reflect concerns about weakening the regime's position if a settlement is reached. In Tehran, Kazem Sadeghi described the negotiations as dangerous, considering the United States an untrustworthy enemy. In Hamedan, Mohammad Ali Shahbani warned of the risks of division within society, calling for trust in the regime's decisions. These statements are attempts to maintain apparent unity amid internal and external pressures, but they reflect fears of internal divisions and growing public discontent.
In parliament, these crises are more visibly displayed. Mahdi Kouhchizadeh, a Tehran deputy, described the Oman negotiations as ambiguous, stating that deputies lack sufficient information. He spoke of the necessity to distinguish between friends and enemies. These statements reflect the dissatisfaction of some factions and a diminishing role for parliament in major decision-making.
Consequences of the Negotiations
Whether the nuclear negotiations succeed or fail, they will have heavy repercussions for the regime. If an agreement is reached, the regime will have to retreat from its previous slogans, likely diminishing the support of its backers. Hardline factions, which view negotiations as capitulation, may openly oppose Khamenei, further increasing internal divisions. If the negotiations fail, the regime will face harsher sanctions, military pressures from Israel and the United States, and growing internal resentment. The experience of the previous nuclear agreement has shown that the regime did not achieve its goals in past negotiations.
Khamenei's Role
Ali Khamenei plays a complex role in this crisis. On one hand, he agrees to negotiations to alleviate economic and international pressures, while on the other hand, he avoids bearing direct responsibility through silence or ambiguous statements. However, this strategy is no longer as effective as it once was. Internal and external pressures, along with the resentment of officials, weaken his position. Kouhchizadeh's statements about the deputies lacking information reveal a lack of trust even among those close to the regime.
Opportunity or Threat?
The ongoing nuclear negotiations pose more of a threat than an opportunity for the regime. At the same time, these crises provide an opportunity for the angry Iranian populace to protest against the regime. General discontent and the regime's repeated failures pave the way for the expansion of social protests. What is observed in the speeches of Friday prayer leaders and parliament indicates deep crises within the regime, which is no longer able to address major challenges.
In summary, the Iran-U.S. negotiations in Oman have placed the Iranian regime in one of the most challenging phases of its history. Internal disagreements, contradictions in officials' statements, and an inability to make decisive decisions illustrate the depth of these crises. The statements of Alamolhoda, Sadeghi, and parliamentary deputies are merely part of these larger issues.
Mir Mohammadi System
