Officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran, while the fate of the ceasefire and the end of the war with the United States is still unclear, have imposed new restrictions in the Strait of Hormuz and have raised new demands for ending the war by adding "the end of the siege of Yemen" to their conditions.
Iran's Conditions for Ending the War
Iran had previously announced that for the war to end, the opposing party must "completely stop the war, refrain from renewed threats, the Israeli army must withdraw from Lebanon, $24 billion of Iran's frozen assets must be released, and refrain from any interference in its nuclear and missile capabilities." Mohsen Rezaei, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, recently announced "new strategies in war, negotiation, and countering the siege" and identified the creation of "a new no-fly zone in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman" as one of these new strategies.
Positions and Arguments of Supporters of Maximum Pressure Approach
Hosseini Mohibi, spokesperson for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, also added "the end of the siege of Yemen" to Iran's five conditions for ending the war. This move can be seen as a new demand in negotiations between Iran and the United States. An examination of the recent positions of Iranian political and military officials indicates that within part of the power structure, there is a belief that the state of "neither war nor peace" or, as Mojtaba Khamenei puts it, the "period of silence on the battlefield" is more of a ground for the gradual erosion of Iran's power than an opportunity for diplomacy.
From the perspective of supporters of this approach, the United States will only be willing to accept Iran's demands if it incurs higher costs and faces reciprocal pressure. In other words, they believe that Tehran must pressure Washington to compel it to accept its conditions and implement a version of "Iranian maximum pressure." Supporters of this approach include politicians, military personnel, and media figures close to the government who emphasize increasing pressure in the Persian Gulf and threatening the interests of the United States and its allies.
In recent decades, opposition to "dialogue" and "negotiation" with the United States has been a constant theme among part of the ruling faction and influential political forces in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ali Khamenei, the former leader of the Islamic Republic, has repeatedly expressed his criticisms of negotiations with the United States. However, at decisive moments, he has agreed to direct and indirect negotiations between Tehran and Washington.
The political atmosphere of the Islamic Republic has been shaped in such a way that hardliners label individuals like Hassan Rouhani, the former President of Iran, and other supporters of resolving disputes with the United States through negotiation as "Western-oriented." These individuals have often been criticized by Ali Khamenei as well. In contrast, those with more anti-Western positions have often had a broader field of action.
After the 40-day war, the hardening of the positions of opponents of negotiation and ceasefire has become clearly observable. Some of these opponents, referring to the death of Ali Khamenei and several senior commanders of the Islamic Republic, believe that the end of the war should not be achieved through compromise. They say: "America started the war, but its end is up to us."
The positions of critics of the Islamabad agreement became more prominent after Mojtaba Khamenei announced that he had a "different opinion" on this agreement. These statements led to a more explicit opposition to the negotiation process being expressed in the political and media space. This group argues that due to rising energy prices globally and the proximity of midterm elections in the United States, Washington lacks the will to re-enter the war.
Saeed Jalili, a prominent principlist figure and Mojtaba Khamenei's representative in the Supreme National Security Council, has said: "If you do not aim for the maximum, you will not even reach the minimum." He alone among the members of the Supreme National Security Council did not vote for the Iran-U.S. agreement and believes that "when the enemy is defeated, that is when the initiative begins." Additionally, Mahmoud Nabavian, a member of the National Security Commission of the Parliament, and Amir Hossein Sabati, another member of Parliament, have similar positions and emphasize the necessity of preemptive action.
Read more: Prince Faisal's warning: Escalation of tensions in the Middle East poses a risk of expanding conflict · Iran and the U.S. confrontation in the Persian Gulf; a repeat of the tanker war
