کانال اختصاصی رضا نصری

Discussions on Iran in U.S. foreign policy circles are often shaped by narratives pushed by elements of the Iranian opposition, who aim to steer decision-making to serve their own agendas. These narratives are built on flawed assumptions that misrepresent the realities of Iran’s internal affairs and regional actions.

Some of these flawed assumptions were reasserted in the recent Council on Foreign Relations (@CFR_org) discussion:

1. Iran is constantly on the edge of unrest, and Western intervention could bring down its government.

This view oversimplifies the complexity of Iran's socio-political dynamics and the resilience of its political establishment. While protests and dissent occur—as in many countries—Iran’s institutions have remained remarkably stable over the years, even under severe external pressures like sanctions, isolation, targeted assassinations, cyberattacks and covert operations. Predicting an imminent collapse only leads to misguided and counterproductive policies.

2. The Iranian people welcome sanctions and the suffering they cause.

This claim is completely false and lacks both evidence and common sense. Sanctions have a devastating impact on ordinary Iranians, leading to inflation, unemployment, and shortages of essential goods, with the most vulnerable populations suffering the most. The idea that any nation would welcome such economic hardship is not only absurd but dehumanizing. Such assertions are often repeated by individuals who haven’t set foot in Iran in over forty years.

3. Iran’s actions in the region are driven by ideological motives.

This is yet another caricature that a Western audience may be prone to believe. Iran’s regional policies are primarily pragmatic, focused on security concerns. Its actions are often reactionary, aimed at countering perceived threats and constant external pressure. Iran's security policy is influenced by U.S. military bases on its borders, Takfiri terrorist groups to the East and West, and Israeli nuclear warheads pointed at it, all creating a tense and challenging security landscape. Reducing Iran's policies to mere ideology distorts Tehran's motivations and overlooks the broader geopolitical context.

4. Iran is an irrational actor that should not be treated as a 'normal' state.

Contrary to this claim, Iran operates as a rational actor, making calculated decisions to protect its national interests. Its engagement in the 2015 nuclear deal and ongoing regional diplomacy reflect pragmatism, not irrationality. Its recent normalization of relations with Saudi Arabia—once considered impossible by the same opposition—is another example. Portraying Iran as exceptional or irrational is a tactic to undermine its legitimate security concerns and exclude it from the international arena. It also conveniently fuels fear around Iran's nuclear program, making a balanced and fair diplomatic solution exceedingly difficult.

These flawed premises provide the Iranian opposition an opportunity to gain visibility on the political stage and encourage policies like "abandoning diplomacy" and "supporting civil society," which often serve as euphemisms for regime change.

But despite their assertions, this approach has been tried repeatedly over the past four decades and has consistently failed to meet any of the Western countries' stated objectives. Nevertheless, it continues to serve the narrow interests of the opposition.

This is why they also consistently work to silence alternative voices and "deny platforms" to those who may offer a more nuanced and realistic perspectives.

https://x.com/RezaNasri1/status/1865002862855512172?s=19

X (formerly Twitter)

Reza Nasri (@RezaNasri1) on X

2.7K viewsReza Nasri, 14:49