Listen to the article: Auto-generated audio text from an automated system

0:00

4 minutes read

The major flaw in opening the door to negotiations with Iran is about "what is being negotiated." There should be no negotiation with the Iranian regime on a matter such as the Strait of Hormuz; it is regulated by international maritime law and is an international passageway, so it should not even be proposed as a topic for negotiation. Nor should the Iranian regime put forward Lebanon as one of the topics for negotiation; Lebanon is a sovereign country that decides its own fate and has a government representing the state and negotiating on its behalf. There should be no negotiation with the Iranian regime on reaching understandings to stop attacks; this is a given, and it is unacceptable that attacks on countries of the region occur at all, let alone that we negotiate to stop them!!

Thus, a group cannot attack, illegally seize resources, and then negotiate over them, and if its demands are not met, attack countries in the region and demand that it be given what is not rightfully theirs in exchange for stopping aggression, terrorism, and blackmail!!

What should be negotiated is whether the Iranian regime intends to act as a normal state, and thus negotiate with it on how to reintegrate it into the international community, thereby gaining its rights as a state, being able to interact normally with the global system, and achieving gains and developing its interests like any state with sovereignty and interests; or whether it intends to continue operating as a regime that does not act like a normal state, but is more akin to a system that runs criminal networks, with its leaders dominating Iran's resources and people, and expanding criminal networks beyond its borders: establishing militias, supporting proxies, smuggling weapons, explosives, and extremist ideologies, exploiting other countries' resources and destinies, suppressing the will of their peoples, blackmailing states, and engaging in piracy, bullying, threats, and attacks within the framework of a state and its institutions!!

If it chooses to continue as a revolutionary regime rather than a normal state, it does not deserve the rights of normal states, and the international community should not deal with it, because the international community is concerned with relations between states and normal international organizations, not with regimes and groups that operate outside the framework of the state and practice terrorism and crime, even if they control a state and its official institutions. Otherwise, it would mean that any extremist group, such as ISIS, al-Qaeda, or the Iranian regime, could take over a country and force the world to deal with it without deterrence.

Is it normal for an extremist group to engage in piracy, for example, and prevent ships from passing through the Strait of Malacca? Or as pirates did at Bab el-Mandeb or any international waterway, and the world accepts negotiating with them? Or establish groups like Hezbollah, the Houthis, and militias in Iraq and elsewhere, and blackmail states through them, and the world accepts negotiating with those who founded them instead of holding them accountable and negotiating with the concerned states and their official institutions?

The failure to deter the Iranian regime from the beginning, when it started establishing these tools and building the network of tools with which it blackmails the world today, was the first mistake that has led to the cost of confronting the Iranian "project"—not "behavior"—being what it is today.

As for the second mistake, it is about what is being negotiated with them. Is it about givens that cannot be accepted and are already settled, even if they fell into the hands of pirates illegally and in violation of international laws, and UN Security Council resolutions condemning them have been issued? Or is the negotiation with them on the fundamental question: Do we negotiate with you as a normal state? In this case, you must comply with international law, Security Council resolutions, and all frameworks that regulate the international community and relations between states, so that you can deal with you as a normal state with rights and obligations like the rest of the world. Or do you continue as a revolutionary regime operating outside international law, not adhering to Security Council resolutions or international principles and laws? Then you should be treated as an outlaw group that must be isolated and deterred from practicing terrorism, blackmail, piracy, and attacking other states. Otherwise, the world would be a jungle or a "neighborhood where everyone does as they please."

Advertorial

Advertorial

Disclaimer: All published articles represent the views of their authors only.