.png)
5 hours ago
6
The surprise offer by the president of Iran, Masoud Pezeshkian, to not attack countries in the neighbourhood so long as their airspace and US bases within their territories are not used to attack Iran has provoked a storm inside the country as the military appeared to contradict him, if not outright overrule him.
There were also calls for a new supreme leader to be installed as quickly as possible, as a means of marginalising the president. Attacks on facilities in Bahrain and elsewhere have continued, and there were unconfirmed reports that Bahrain had become the first Gulf country to fire back at Iran.
Abbas Araghchi, the Iranian foreign minister, seemed focused on the likelihood of escalation, rather then de-escalation.
“The US had committed a blatant and desperate crime by attacking a freshwater desalination plant on Qeshm Island. Water supply in 30 villages has been impacted. Attacking Iran’s infrastructure is a dangerous move with grave consequences. The US set this precedent, not Iran.”
There are as many as 400 water desalination plants across the Gulf, and if they come to be viewed as legitimate targets, a drinking water crisis of unimaginable proportions could face the region within days.
The backlash over Pezeshkian’s offer was made worse by him including an apology to the region on behalf of himself and the nation in his pre-recorded address on state TV.
He also implied that after the US attack on its top command, rudderless armed forces may have been forced to make targeting decisions on their own. He suggested they had fired at will.
Pezeshkian’s position was not helped by president Trump characterising his offer as a surrender, describing it as the first time Iran had been forced to admit defeat to its regional rivals in a thousand years. Pezeshkian had specifically said those seeking Iran’s surrender would take that wish to their grave.
But Pezeshkian, not always the clearest communicator and not always empowered to make decisions, insisted his offer was the result of a collective decision by the temporary tripartite group of men running the country after the assassination of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Others said it arose out of detailed talks with the Gulf states in recent days.
The internal dispute also shows how power has been diffused in wartime and established lines of authority are in flux, a development that is prompting some clerics and hardline newspapers to call for the election as quickly as possible for a replacement supreme leader.
Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi, for instance, said a choice is “essential in light of the ongoing political confusion”. It is possible the announcement will come this weekend.
The apparent delay in the 88-strong Assembly of Experts electing a new leader may be the result of deadlock, or it may be to give moderate political forces within the country a chance to gain the upper hand over war strategy.
It has been noticeable that at least three high-profile political prisoners have been released since Khamenei’s killing. Trump has said he must approve the future leadership of Iran.
Inside Iran, Pezeshkian’s remarks were met by a range of interpretations and questions, including whether all US bases remained justifiable targets, or only if they were being used to attack Iran.
The Gulf states’ anger about the attacks has been growing since they claimed they had clearly communicated to Iran that the US bases and their airspace would not be used in the American attack. Moreover, Iran had not just attacked US facilities. States such as Qatar have complained that oil refineries, hotels and airports have also been hit.
There were few immediate official responses in the Gulf to Pezeshkian’s remarks. Gulf Cooperation Council foreign ministers are due to meet on Sunday.
A western diplomat described the president’s address as “one data point”, adding it was not clear if a decline in Iranian attacks was a policy choice or a product of military necessity
In the face of the criticism about what precisely had been agreed, Mehdi Tabatabaei, the president’ s deputy director of communications, insisted that Pezeshkian’s message was “clear”. He said: “If the countries of the region do not cooperate in the American attack, we will not attack them. The Islamic Republic of Iran will never yield to force, and our powerful armed forces will give a decisive response to any aggression from US bases in the region.”
In the five minute address, Pezeshkian said: “No more missiles will be fired at these countries unless an attack on Iran originates from those countries.” He urged the Gulf states not to become “toys in the hands of imperialism”.
But the armed forces clearly showed their disapproval of the president, which could yet lead to splits between the military and some politicians.
In a statement, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said: “Following the orders of the Honorable President of the Republic, the Armed Forces declare for the umpteenth time that they respect the interests and national sovereignty of neighboring countries and have not yet attacked them.
“However, in the continuation of previous offensive actions, all military bases and interests of the criminal America and the fake Zionist regime on land, sea and space in the region will be subjected to crushing and fierce blows by the powerful armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
The foreign ministry also did not reiterate the president’s offer, instead saying its “defensive operations were against targets and facilities that are the origin and source of aggressive actions against the nation or serve such targets”.
Alaeddin Boroujerdi, a member of the parliament’s national security and foreign policy commission stated: “Before the start of the ‘Ramadan war’, we clearly announced to each and every country in the region that if America takes military action against Iran, we will definitely target American bases; these bases are considered American territory and not the territory of the countries in the region; this policy has not changed in any way and will continue with determination.”
The president’s words “should not be misused or questioned”, they continued, but added: “If the radars of these bases are active and guide the planes that are conducting operations against Iran, we will target those bases.”
Ali Asghar Nakhaeirad, a Mashhad MP, warned: “The Arab countries that have provided bases to the enemy and allowed them to be used to attack our country are … at least accomplices in the martyrdom of our beloved leader, 167 elementary schoolchildren, and nearly 2,000 of our compatriots. In all legal systems in the world, accomplices are punished, not apologised to.
“Your apology to the partners or accomplices in the martyrdom of our leader, dearer than our lives, is not wise. The alternative, he said, was to raze the palaces of the emirs to the ground.”
During a television appearance, Hamidreza Moghaddamfar, media adviser to the IRGC, seemed to be more supportive of the president’s line, saying the restraint is conditional on no action being “taken against Iran from those bases in the countries of the region; this was the main message”.
He clarified: “So far, the countries in the region themselves have not been our targets, and they know this. The aim of our attacks has been solely the interests and positions of the United States in the region, which include military bases, airbases, missile systems and ships, which are our targets.”
Moghaddamfar said: “The countries of the region have been repeatedly raising the issue from the beginning that they are being harmed. We have also apologised to them from the very beginning.” He suggested discussions had led to a new understanding with the Gulf states that the US bases would not be used to attack Iran.
Mashallah Shamsolvaezin, a member of the government information council, insisted the president’s apology had been viewed very positively. “On the one hand, it shows his personal humility, and on the other hand, it shows the flexibility of Iran’s foreign policy towards neighbouring countries.”
