Intense fight

The new Iran; and the Iran which died February 28

No doubt there are many issues plaguing this imperfect world, around; yet it goes without saying that what transpires between the USA and Iran is of utmost importance to everyone, doing business in real estate, hedge funds, investing in minerals or simply understanding the macroeconomic shocks an economy might be exposed to. With the shift of the negotiating table from Islamabad to Doha, the lingering issues remain the same. The lack of mutual trust; the divergent voices coming out of Tehran; at one time; the whole Iranian establishment on one page; and the other moment; a big split. Sometimes an assessment that the elusive leader is backing the JCPOA team; at other moments it looks as if the reformist administration is doing all the things above his head.

Even on May 28, wee hours in the southern flank of Iran; while there are confirmed reports of tit for tat from both sides of the fence inclusive of the Gulf states, there has been a muted whispering that another top official from the IRGC Navy might have been taken out. The reports might be speculation in a conflict where confirmation of facts and the truth are the biggest casualties, the fact remains that the caption of the analysis, the conflict between the two Irans, the new Iran  which wants to bury the legacy of the February 28’ victims of the Bayat Rahbari and the February 28 Iran as was live and functioning till 0830 Hours Tehran Time remains at the heart of the matter; not just for Iran, but for the region as a whole. 

Looking forward, the process might still have many twists, road blocks ahead, before anything is finalised which preserves the concerns of both the parties. For the proponents of the new Iran; the assassinations of the leader have made the process nothing short of a landmine. For the Zarif & Co and Reza Pahlavi & Co; making the theocracy the thing of the past is fraught with a very difficult road map. For the world seeing both sides of the fence, a photofinish cannot be ruled out. Once reestablished, the Old Iran can claim that it was preserved after passing through a river of blood, for the new Iran it is ‘another day; another opportunity’

For a casual follower of these developments, the idea might be as simple as that the section of Iranians wants the theocratic regime to fall to be replaced by a regime more in tune with the IMF, the Pentagon and above all the Jewish financial wizards. Deep down analysis suggests things to the contrary. Despite the fact that the so-called deal after the change of venue from Islamabad to Doha is still oscillating between the extreme possibilities, the hard fact remains that the Iranian diaspora, apparently because of their own tunnelled view of Iranian society, practically led its US and IDF backers into Middle-East politics in a way that they are able to dictate what might not have been possible in the normal circumstances.

It is despite that fact that the decapitation of Hamas and Islamic Jihad did not help create an environment for the Abraham Accords revival. True the Gaza strip is now in ruins, the Board of Peace is happy with dictating terms, which have zero effectiveness on ground; the impression of the fact that the bastion of resistance has got cracks within, emboldened the US President to demand things which were not there in the first place. His logic that the renewed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and acceptance of the Abraham Accords were mutually binding has in fact thrown the whole world into more chaos.

The stern stance taken by Saudi Arabia, despite being on good terms with the USAF and IDF as regards the transit of air refueling tankers, feeding jets for the bombing raids on the Iranian targets through much of the 40 days of scorched-earth policy pursued by the above mentioned militaries with regard to the clerical regime in Tehran, the Saudi response and that of Pakistan in face of the blanket obligation to join the Accords camp is in fact a breath of fresh air, even if it is short lived. 

For even a casually alert observer, the Iranian diaspora under the slogan of first regime change ‘necessary to overthrow’ an autocratic regime, then followed by the local dissidents the ‘reformists’ to do away with the legacy of what we will call onwards as ‘old Iran’ by reestablishing links with the West with no questions asked about the devastation and the assassinations in the process of regime change, means that the ‘monarchist’ element is not just the one looking for the new Iran, rather the reform group is precipitating the same road map, in their own or in a different way. The end result is the same; burial of the old Iran and the birth of the new Iran.

That conflict is evident on the count that the reformist group coupled with ambitious politicians from the Iranian parliament seems to be on the same page. Despite the fact that they are plagued with a leadership conformation bottleneck, they have been more than willing to talk to the Americans; conveniently ignoring the fact that the US aggression had many lacunas in terms of its execution. The US administration in particular, and Western civilization in general, has been conveniently bypassing the international rules of engagement. Right from the Lumumba episode in Congo in 1961, when a head of the state was unceremoniously killed, dissolved into acid, to the bombing of the Chilean leftist president Salvadore Allende in 1973 by the compromised Chilean air force in September 1973 to the February 28, 2026 bombing of the residence of Syed Ali Khamenei, the pattern seems to be the same; all the Americans care is to ‘get him’. Here what is more pathetic on the part of the new Iran made up of Pezeshkian, Araghchi and Qalibaf is that in their rush for the agreement, they did not pursue the questions pointed above in any manner.

That type of body language confirmed with the periodic utterances of the POTUS, who always claims and claimed that there are ‘new sensible’ people in Iran who are willing to talk; combined with the suspicions within the IRGC circles and the radical sections of the society that the administration is not completely into preserving what they call or feel the ‘old or original Iran’. 

Here it may still be pointed at that at the heat of the conflict in Gaza, the ICC while implicating Netanyahu and Defence Minister Galant, still in a sort of balancing act also implicated Yahya Sinwar for no apparent reason; the takeaway, Iranian lack of will to take up the issue with the ICJ in the first place as they might be fearing a backlash, its lukewarm support to that initiative also a contributing factor. 

It may be pointed out that the Iranians are at pains to show that they are not a divided house, yet the confusion within Iran, the cryptic signaling on Twitter by Trump looks more like an alert from him to the reformists to ‘hurry up’ before it is too late. His situation is similar to an external character who is precipitating a change in a setup yet is getting restless at moments. A careful trajectory of his tweets reveals rather confirms that pattern, while the geopolitical observers get excited over some new developments rather a ‘breaking news’ pattern is followed, while any incident is just an isolated event.

As things stand, the above mentioned signaling still indicates that the so-called compliant leadership Trump mentions is not in complete control. The draft agreement seems to be making rounds within Iran between the national security infrastructure as well as the supreme leader’s office. Given the fact that the coordinates of the current leader cannot be exposed for the fear of IDF and CENTCOM hitting him, the Americans have made the process more complicated by their relentless behaviour in taking out both Ali Khamenei and Larijani during the 40 days war. In turn, it has made a favourable capitulation from Iran, even more complicated procedurally. 

Looking forward, the process might still have many twists, road blocks ahead, before anything is finalised which preserves the concerns of both the parties. For the proponents of the new Iran; the assassinations of the leader have made the process nothing short of a landmine. For the Zarif & Co and Reza Pahlavi & Co; making the theocracy the thing of the past is fraught with a very difficult road map. For the world seeing both sides of the fence, a photofinish cannot be ruled out. Once reestablished, the Old Iran can claim that it was preserved after passing through a river of blood, for the new Iran it is ‘another day; another opportunity’.