By appointing Ebrahim Raisi as president, the Iranian regime’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei intended to prepare the Iranian regime for more repression and a more contradicted atmosphere in the country. Barely six months since his inauguration, conflicts, and disagreements within Khamenei’s faction are on the rise, and his desired ‘Hezbollah Government’ is trembling because of the internal ‘hurricanes’.
In the field of economy and internal issues within Iran, the situation is so critical that the government does not know how to implement the budget for the next Persian calendar year.
Currently, one of the most disputed topics, in which the regime’s parliament is divided, is how to advance the nuclear negotiations with the Western countries, including how to embrace direct negotiations with the US government which, until now, is a red line for the regime, as they have previously claimed.
During an interview with the regime state-TV Channel 2 on January 25, the regime’s Foreign Minister, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said, “We will not ignore this if we reach a stage in the negotiation process were reaching a good agreement with a high guarantee is necessary to have a level of dialogue with the Americans.”
Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of the regime’s Security Council, took a similar position to Amir-Abdollahian on Twitter on the same day regarding direct talks with the United States, writing, “So far, communication with the American delegation in Vienna has been through informal writing exchanges, and there has been no need for more. This method of communication can only be replaced by other methods when a good agreement is available.”
In an interview with state-TV News Channel on January 25, a question was posed to Raisi by the program’s moderator who asked, “Requests for direct talks that are said to be made by the United States, what would be the clear position of the Islamic Republic of Iran if this request is made seriously?”
Raisi responded, “No talks have been held with the Americans so far, but what is at stake is that we reiterate that if the parties are ready to lift the harsh sanctions against the Iranian people, there is room for any agreement.”
Ebrahim Azizi, the regime’s Deputy Chairman of the Parliamentary Security Commission made a comment, which was published by the state-run news agency Fars on January 26, and said, “Based on the dignity of wisdom and expediency, the lifting of all sanctions, verification and obtaining guarantees, if it is necessary for them to have access to negotiate with the United States, the negotiating team has the authority to take the necessary action.”
Before this, the regime’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei, as the main determiner about the regime’s nuclear case, implicitly agreed and verified direct negotiations with the US government at a meeting with some of the regime’s elements on January 9.
He said, “Not surrendering to the arrogant and oppressive enemy is one of the principles of the revolution, and to negotiate, talk and interact with the enemy at some point does not mean surrendering to it, just as we have not surrendered yet and we will not surrender from now on.”
Contradictory positions in Khamenei’s factions are showing the intensity of the internal conflicts within the regime. The fact is that the differences indicate the weakness and inability of the regime to balance power, which inevitably sends a message of weakness to the regime’s rivals and counterparts.
Amazingly, some factions and elements are under the false impression that their opposition to the negotiations is a strong point and position for the regime, yet they are forgetting that the regime is in a situation where even if sanctions are slightly loosened, this will not solve any of the regime’s problems due to its corrupt economic structure.
In case of disagreement, this is also a sign of the weakness and intensity of internal contradictions. As Khamenei said on June 15, 2021, accepting the demands of the counterparts, means “endless degradation” for the regime.
Thus, the regime is in a position that, in any terms of agreement or disagreement, accepting the direct negotiations with the United States or continuing the non-negotiating path, is a deadlock that will eventually lead to its fall.
