In the ongoing and all-important Iran nuclear negotiations, the actor who, both before and during the talks, gradually forced the Iranian regime into retreat – first bringing it to the negotiating table and then extracting one concession after another – was not officially present. Yet its role was decisive.
Who is this mysterious actor?
Back on Feb. 20, on the first day of Ramadan, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, speaking before senior state officials and commanders in his protective militia, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, characterized any potential negotiations with the United States as “neither rational nor honorable.”
However, according to reports from Tehran, following explicit threats from the Trump administration, a confidential meeting was held between senior IRGC and government officials, during which they unanimously convinced Khamenei that a military confrontation would trigger a nationwide uprising – one that could lead to his regime’s collapse.
From that moment on, Khamenei had no choice but to accept negotiations.
He entered the talks aiming to preserve a limited level of uranium enrichment – up to 3.67% – to maintain the regime’s nuclear infrastructure. He was even willing to allow a consortium to handle enrichment, so long as it operated within Iran. His long-term goal was to raise enrichment levels to 20% or even 60% when the time was right, using that capability as leverage against foreign powers.
The regime’s vulnerability
Unlike during the 2015 negotiations over the so-called “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” – better known as “the Iran nuclear deal” – when Barack Obama was president, during the current negotiations the Iranian regime has shown itself to be far more vulnerable. This increased susceptibility stems from an existential internal crisis facing the regime – one that has, for over 25 years, kept two-thirds of Iran’s population in poverty to preserve its nuclear program. The regime has invested nearly two trillion dollars in this pursuit and now faces the reality that it must abandon it. Yet it has tied its very survival to the development of nuclear weapons.
Since the nationwide uprising of December 2017, popular protests have clearly demonstrated the Iranian people’s overwhelming desire for regime change. Resistance units across the country, organized by the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, or PMOI/MEK, have been the driving force behind these protests. Despite brutal repression, these units have managed to coordinate dozens of protest actions daily.
It is the presence of these resistance units throughout Iran that has the potential to turn any uprising into a movement capable of toppling the regime. This is the mysterious actor that remains active, yet is absent from the negotiating table.
Indeed, the popular discontent towards the current regime has manifested in no fewer than five consecutive nationwide uprisings since 2017, the ever-increasing evidence of widespread rejection of the mullahs by their own population. It is this factor of mounting internal instability and volatility that is the true driving force behind the current negotiations.
Are the talks deadlocked?
Iranian officials have repeatedly complained that the negotiations are at a dead end. As Mohsen Rezaei, a member of the National Security Commission of Parliament, told CNN: “We have no hope. The U.S. continues to insist on zero enrichment, and the Islamic Republic will never agree to that.” He added, “We are preparing for Plan B,” though he provided no details.
Meanwhile, the regime’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi also declared that Iran “will not surrender.” However, these statements appear to be aimed at managing public opinion and preparing the ground for a potential retreat.
Israeli threats and the regime’s panic
Prior to the fifth round of negotiations, several U.S. media outlets reported the possibility of an Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. These reports triggered a wave of anxiety within the IRGC and the government. In response, Abbas Araghchi sent a letter to the United Nations, holding the United States responsible for any potential attacks. The IRGC spokesman also declared, “Do not try to scare us with military threats.”
According to two French researchers and authors of the book “Réponse du 7 octobre,” “Any strike on nuclear facilities would serve as a launchpad for an inevitable uprising.” The authors argue that 80% of Iran’s population opposes the regime and that such an uprising is, in their words, “bound to happen.”
Meanwhile, as U.S.-European coordination increasingly limits the Iranian regime’s maneuvering room, Europe has gone so far as to consider not only re-activating the snapback mechanism but also introducing a “Snapback Plus” clause into any potential agreement. Simultaneously, the United States has made it clear that even 1% uranium enrichment on Iranian soil is unacceptable.
Inside the country, public hatred toward the regime has reached a boiling point, with widespread calls for change. Perhaps this is what President Donald Trump meant when he said on Sunday, May 25: “The negotiations are going very, very well.”
* * *
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
This article was originally published by the WND News Center.
