Analysis
Offer
from Iran’s president to not attack neighbours provokes internal backlash
Patrick
Wintour
Diplomatic
editor
As Masoud
Pezeshkian tries to de-escalate conflict, hardliners urge installation of new
supreme leader to marginalise the president
Sat 7 Mar
2026 18.35 GMT
The
surprise offer by the president of Iran, Masoud Pezeshkian, to not attack
countries in the neighbourhood so long as their airspace and US bases within
their territories are not used to attack Iran has provoked a storm inside the
country as the military appeared to contradict him, if not outright overrule
him.
There
were also calls for a new supreme leader to be installed as quickly as
possible, as a means of marginalising the president. Attacks on facilities in
Bahrain and elsewhere have continued, and there were unconfirmed reports that
Bahrain had become the first Gulf country to fire back at Iran.
Abbas
Araghchi, the Iranian foreign minister, seemed focused on the likelihood of
escalation, rather then de-escalation.
“The US
had committed a blatant and desperate crime by attacking a freshwater
desalination plant on Qeshm Island. Water supply in 30 villages has been
impacted. Attacking Iran’s infrastructure is a dangerous move with grave
consequences. The US set this precedent, not Iran.”
There are
as many as 400 water desalination plants across the Gulf, and if they come to
be viewed as legitimate targets, a drinking water crisis of unimaginable
proportions could face the region within days.
The
backlash over Pezeshkian’s offer was made worse by him including an apology to
the region on behalf of himself and the nation in his pre-recorded address on
state TV.
He also
implied that after the US attack on its top command, rudderless armed forces
may have been forced to make targeting decisions on their own. He suggested
they had fired at will.
Pezeshkian’s
position was not helped by president Trump characterising his offer as a
surrender, describing it as the first time Iran had been forced to admit defeat
to its regional rivals in a thousand years. Pezeshkian had specifically said
those seeking Iran’s surrender would take that wish to their grave.
But
Pezeshkian, not always the clearest communicator and not always empowered to
make decisions, insisted his offer was the result of a collective decision by
the temporary tripartite group of men running the country after the
assassination of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Others said it
arose out of detailed talks with the Gulf states in recent days.
The
internal dispute also shows how power has been diffused in wartime and
established lines of authority are in flux, a development that is prompting
some clerics and hardline newspapers to call for the election as quickly as
possible for a replacement supreme leader.
Ayatollah
Makarem Shirazi, for instance, said a choice is “essential in light of the
ongoing political confusion”. It is possible the announcement will come this
weekend.
The
apparent delay in the 88-strong Assembly of Experts electing a new leader may
be the result of deadlock, or it may be to give moderate political forces
within the country a chance to gain the upper hand over war strategy.
It has
been noticeable that at least three high-profile political prisoners have been
released since Khamenei’s killing. Trump has said he must approve the future
leadership of Iran.
Inside
Iran, Pezeshkian’s remarks were met by a range of interpretations and
questions, including whether all US bases remained justifiable targets, or only
if they were being used to attack Iran.
The Gulf
states’ anger about the attacks has been growing since they claimed they had
clearly communicated to Iran that the US bases and their airspace would not be
used in the American attack. Moreover, Iran had not just attacked US
facilities. States such as Qatar have complained that oil refineries, hotels
and airports have also been hit.
There
were few immediate official responses in the Gulf to Pezeshkian’s remarks. Gulf
Cooperation Council foreign ministers are due to meet on Sunday.
A western
diplomat described the president’s address as “one data point”, adding it was
not clear if a decline in Iranian attacks was a policy choice or a product of
military necessity
In the
face of the criticism about what precisely had been agreed, Mehdi Tabatabaei,
the president’ s deputy director of communications, insisted that Pezeshkian’s
message was “clear”. He said: “If the countries of the region do not cooperate
in the American attack, we will not attack them. The Islamic Republic of Iran
will never yield to force, and our powerful armed forces will give a decisive
response to any aggression from US bases in the region.”
In the
five minute address, Pezeshkian said: “No more missiles will be fired at these
countries unless an attack on Iran originates from those countries.” He urged
the Gulf states not to become “toys in the hands of imperialism”.
But the
armed forces clearly showed their disapproval of the president, which could yet
lead to splits between the military and some politicians.
In a
statement, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said: “Following the
orders of the Honorable President of the Republic, the Armed Forces declare for
the umpteenth time that they respect the interests and national sovereignty of
neighboring countries and have not yet attacked them.
“However,
in the continuation of previous offensive actions, all military bases and
interests of the criminal America and the fake Zionist regime on land, sea and
space in the region will be subjected to crushing and fierce blows by the
powerful armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
The
foreign ministry also did not reiterate the president’s offer, instead saying
its “defensive operations were against targets and facilities that are the
origin and source of aggressive actions against the nation or serve such
targets”.
Alaeddin
Boroujerdi, a member of the parliament’s national security and foreign policy
commission stated: “Before the start of the ‘Ramadan war’, we clearly announced
to each and every country in the region that if America takes military action
against Iran, we will definitely target American bases; these bases are
considered American territory and not the territory of the countries in the
region; this policy has not changed in any way and will continue with
determination.”
The
president’s words “should not be misused or questioned”, they continued, but
added: “If the radars of these bases are active and guide the planes that are
conducting operations against Iran, we will target those bases.”
Ali
Asghar Nakhaeirad, a Mashhad MP, warned: “The Arab countries that have provided
bases to the enemy and allowed them to be used to attack our country are … at
least accomplices in the martyrdom of our beloved leader, 167 elementary
schoolchildren, and nearly 2,000 of our compatriots. In all legal systems in
the world, accomplices are punished, not apologised to.
“Your
apology to the partners or accomplices in the martyrdom of our leader, dearer
than our lives, is not wise. The alternative, he said, was to raze the palaces
of the emirs to the ground.”
During a
television appearance, Hamidreza Moghaddamfar, media adviser to the IRGC,
seemed to be more supportive of the president’s line, saying the restraint is
conditional on no action being “taken against Iran from those bases in the
countries of the region; this was the main message”.
He
clarified: “So far, the countries in the region themselves have not been our
targets, and they know this. The aim of our attacks has been solely the
interests and positions of the United States in the region, which include
military bases, airbases, missile systems and ships, which are our targets.”
Moghaddamfar
said: “The countries of the region have been repeatedly raising the issue from
the beginning that they are being harmed. We have also apologised to them from
the very beginning.” He suggested discussions had led to a new understanding
with the Gulf states that the US bases would not be used to attack Iran.
Mashallah
Shamsolvaezin, a member of the government information council, insisted the
president’s apology had been viewed very positively. “On the one hand, it shows
his personal humility, and on the other hand, it shows the flexibility of
Iran’s foreign policy towards neighbouring countries.”
.webp)
.jpeg)
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário