Regarding the statement of the Unity Party; in the name of peace, against Iran Tasnim News Agency's St...

Regarding the statement of the Unity Party; in the name of peace, against Iran Tasnim News Agency's Strategic Studies Center; Politics and Society Desk: 🔹If we were to summarize the recent statement of the Unity Party in one sentence, it could be said: America attacks Iran, Iranians lose their lives, and the country's infrastructure is damaged, but the main accused is still the Islamic Republic for not being sufficiently self-restrained, calm, polite, and diplomatic! 🔹In the logic of this statement, America seems to be a natural phenomenon that comes like a flood, earthquake, or tornado, attacks, and leaves; and like natural phenomena that bear no responsibility, no one should expect accountability from America! From their viewpoint, it does not matter what has happened in the past two years; in any case, it is Iran that should behave more wisely! 🔹For years, whenever America imposes sanctions, threatens, carries out assassinations, or supports an attack on Iran, some groups inside propose solutions to the Islamic Republic instead of writing a statement to the White House. Not even once has their main addressee in their statements been the President of the United States. Not even once have they named the war hawks in Washington with the same harsh and passionate tone they use when talking about domestic hardliners. Apparently, in their political lexicon, demanding accountability is only permissible from Tehran, and demanding accountability from America is considered a diplomatic rudeness. 🔹Another fundamental problem with the statement is its value-laden and almost sacred understanding of the agreement. The authors speak of "preserving the memorandum" as if the agreement inherently possesses moral virtues; merely signing it turns it into a worthy achievement, and anyone who questions the results, costs, or obligations is deemed an enemy of peace and a collaborator of Israel. 🔹Whereas, in international politics, agreements are neither sacred nor inherently desirable. An agreement is merely a tool; just like negotiation, political pressure, military deterrence, and field presence are tools. 🔹Real peace requires security, balance, mutual respect, removal of threats, and guarantees against aggression. If one party is free to attack whenever it wants and the other party is obligated not to react in order to preserve the "diplomatic opportunity," this situation is not peace; it is a unilateral suspension of the right to defense. A peace that only binds Iran while exempting America from accountability resembles more a calm that an aggressor desires to regroup. 🔹The Unity Party might better invite the United States to stop its aggression before calling on the Islamic Republic to exhibit self-restraint; perhaps then it could be believed that the issue is truly about peace, not about weakening Iran's will against the enemy. 📝Read the full text of the note here.