After Washington reneged on the JCPOA in May 2018, it was natural that there was existential angst in Iran - years had been spent pursuing diplomacy, and then the nation's archenemy said that diplomacy was impossible. It is natural that the Iranian people were exasperated by such Western belligerence and false promises, and that they did not know which way to turn back then.
However, it is clear one year later that the nation has recomposed itself and moved on.
There is routine public discussion in the tea houses and at the top levels of government that Iran should not even denigrate themselves with more diplomatic discussions. Clearly, Iran is not afraid - it is disgusted by the way the West has failed to honor their word. Politics change, but it seems as if Iran is going to wait until the 2020 US elections before seriously restarting more diplomatic efforts. This would also give the EU some time to grow a backbone. To the self-appointed "masters of the universe" in Washington - this reluctance to answer their phone calls is yet another slap in the face.
Not jumping at more negotiations, shooting down a drone, Iran publicly and politely declaring they will resume uranium enrichment, unexplained attacks in the Persian Gulf - all of these have caused the US to lose so much face in recent weeks.
Iran is making the US look bad, very bad. Therefore, it is little wonder that Washington and The New York Times have chose to wage maximum sabre-rattling with this "near attack".
Frankly, I am unimpressed, and I think Iran will react the same way.
Iranians now appear united in their stance: negotiations were made in good faith and thus must be honored, or else there can be no new negotiations - certainly no jury would disagree. If a Western attack happens - sadly, it won't be the first one.
Of course, this is merely the latest chapter in the effort to destabilise Iran to the point of civil war. The Iran-Iraq War, shooting down an Iranian passenger plane, sanctions on medicine, sanctions to achieve $0 in oil sales - for 40 years the US and their allies have single-mindedly sought to destabilise Iran to the point of creating a reactionary response which would overturn the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution.
Iranians have understood this reality for quite some time - they are united in this view as firmly as they are united in their wish that the West would honor diplomatic accords. Sadly, Westerners do not understand this reality - that the US goal in Iran is civil war, chaos and the end of Muslim Democracy. The Western public has been betrayed by their media and their 1% by decades of orchestrated Iranophobia.
Washington and Trump have actually foolishly painted themselves into a corner - after an "aborted attack" the only further escalation is an "actual attack".
Of course, an attack on Iran has no future - 2019 Iran is not Afghanistan nor Iraq, to list two recent US military failures. An attack on Iran is to continue US policy: foment instability inside Iran, because Iran cannot be invaded.
But I would advise Iran not to play games with a cornered aggressor, and one led by such an inexperienced politician with such a lack of tethering to the idea of the "public good".
Perhaps in the final 1.5 years of his term the erratic Trump can be switched to good sense on Iran? Perhaps Europe, China and Russia can help show that Iran is too strong to be endlessly antagonised? Perhaps the world will see that Iran has - in the Straits of Hormuz - a trump card it can play to demand the lies, sanctions and exclusions finally stop?
This will take more time. But Trump must know - at least instinctively - that Iran is not Syria, and that any strikes will have real consequences to Americans and American interests. That's why he called off the strike" if he ever even called it on.
End.
Related video posted by the editor, not part of Ramin's report:
'Fire on Iran & US will be opening the gates of hell' - George Galloway in video address(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
7
5
4
