Behind the ‘Anti-War’ Narrative; Reconstructing an Electoral Dichotomy 🔹Recently, some figures and me...

Behind the ‘Anti-War’ Narrative; Reconstructing an Electoral Dichotomy 🔹Recently, some figures and media close to the reformist camp have emphasized their ‘anti-war’ stance with similar rhetoric, while attempting to accuse political rivals of ‘warmongering.’ 🔹At first glance, this position seems appealing, as no Iranian desires war. However, with a moment's thought, it becomes clear that the main issue is not defending peace but constructing a political dichotomy—one side labeled as ‘peace advocates’ and the other as ‘warmongers.’ Where are the warmongers? 🔹The first question is, who in Iran has actually supported war? The ongoing dispute is not between ‘war supporters’ and ‘war opponents,’ but about how to prevent war. 🔹One viewpoint argues that deterrence, defensive power, and increasing the costs of aggression decrease the likelihood of war, while another pursues appeasement and submission to the enemy. Transforming this strategic disagreement into the dichotomy of ‘peace or war’ is more a political technique for labeling the opponent than an analysis. Repeating the Same Electoral Narrative 🔹This is not the first time such a dichotomy has been created. For years, at critical political junctures, this message has been conveyed by the reformist camp to society: if the rival comes to power, there will be war. 🔹Now, that same narrative is being reiterated with fresh wording; with the difference being that the country has experienced two wars during the reformist management. 🔹Critics of this approach argue that instead of responding about the effectiveness of past analyses, there is an effort to shift responsibilities to the rival by reconstructing the same old dichotomy and creating a political atmosphere once again centered on that fear. What does historical experience say? 🔹Historical realities do not support this narrative. At a time when the government was promoting a ‘dialogue among civilizations’ as its foreign policy strategy, the U.S. President placed Iran alongside Iraq and North Korea on the ‘Axis of Evil’ list; and the most severe sanctions and threats occurred when our government's policy was passive negotiation with the enemy. 🔹Recent experiences have also shown that U.S. attacks occurred exactly at times when we were at the negotiating table, and we had even accepted many of their unjust requests, including surrendering uranium reserves, prior to the Ramadan war. Deterrence; the point that is omitted 🔹What is less discussed in this discourse is the concept of deterrence. 🔸Strengthening defensive capabilities, missile power, or controlling the Strait of Hormuz and other components of national authority does not equate to a desire for war; rather, according to strategic language, it is a tool for preventing war. 🔹When this reality is ignored, and defending deterrence is portrayed as ‘warmongering,’ one of the most important components of national security will be effectively removed from the dialogue space. 🔹The slogan ‘anti-war’ only has meaning when accompanied by a realistic analysis of the deterrent factors against war. 🔹However, if this slogan becomes a tool for political dichotomization, labeling opponents, and reproducing the same past electoral narratives, it can no longer be considered merely as a peace-oriented stance. 🔹What the country needs today more than anything is to strengthen internal cohesion, maintain deterrence, and avoid dichotomies that could lead to public miscalculations and send incorrect messages to the opposing side.