With the region on a knife’s edge, Mohammad Khatibi makes the case for Iran. It would be interesting to hear this intelligent would-be apologist once he’s free of the regime.
The Middle East and the world are at a massive inflection point in the saga of the Iran war. The two-week ceasefire is about to run out, both sides are digging in their heels, it’s not clear if last-minute negotiations will really resume, and the Strait of Hormuz remains largely blockaded by both America and Iran.
Trump has signaled he does not want to extend the cease-fire, warning of renewed war should negotiation efforts fail. That sounds like a diktat to foreswear nukes, reopen the Strait, abandon proxy militias and more — terms, by the way, I fully support. But Iran refuses so far to give in and appears willing to leverage the disruption to the world economy.
Then again, Trump is almost as big a liar as the Iranian regime. One cannot him at face value; tomorrow he could be lavishing praise on the new Grand Poobah Qalibaf, or extending the cease-fire anyway, or threatening armegaddon, or announcing no one’s ever seen a deal this good. Meanwhile. rumors abounf that despite the brave face, the regime, badly thrashed, is in the throes of significant infighting. It’s hard to separate fact from fiction. It is a waiting game.
So while we do that, I offer my debate, on the NewsX channel, with Mohammad Khatibi, a prominent media analyst in Tehran. His LinkedIn profile bills him as a “political analyst, journalist, and Middle East affairs specialist with extensive experience in Iran’s foreign policy, international relations, and geopolitical strategy (who) provides expert analysis through television appearances, published articles, and opinion pieces.”
These things are interesting, because they reveal a clash of narratives where. I certainly know where I stand, and that is on the side of freedom and democracy. On the other hand, Trump makes for an awkward standard bearer for these. Moreover, if you take a step back, perhaps dialogue can bridge things a little.
We cannot ignore that one side can speak freely, and the other cannot, so I try to read between the lines. What to make of the articulate-sounding fellow from Tehran? Sure, Iran was attacked on Feb. 28, and he seems aggrieved by that. But the Islamic Republic regime’s entire existence, for almost a half century, has been an assault on the region and also on the people of Iran. I do not think an unelected despotism represents “the people” or has the “right” to seek nuclear weapons, build long-range ballistic missiles, implant jihadist militias in neighboring countries to destabilize and harm them, or massacre tens of thousands of its citizens for having marched for freedom.
Khatibi sounds like an apologist for all this, but then again I always feel sorry for such people, for he clearly would be hanged for saying the wrong thing; is he really a part of a criminal regime — or somehow a courageous man trying to avoid landmines while secretly hoping for better days? Have your say in the comments!
NewsX Anchor Ruby Barlow: We’re joined by Dan Perry, an international affairs expert. He’s joining us from Tel Aviv. And we’re also joined by Mohammad Khatibi, who’s a Middle East affairs expert joining us from Tehran. I want to start with you today, Dan. Now, when Trump says he doesn’t want to extend this ceasefire, does this indicate a resumption in the hostilities? And if so, does that mean that we will be indeed seeing the hostilities resume very soon?
DP: It indicates brinksmanship. Trump obviously wants the Iranians to feel they’re under pressure to not only not only resume the talks but agree to his demands and given that he’s projecting that the Americans would be happy to go back to the bombing campaign he’s betting the Iranians would be scares by this. And they might be. Their indifference to being thrashed and devastated is, you know, not so normal. And conceivably, they will be affected by his bluster. But bluster it is, and I think none of us should be naive about the notion that what Trump says in public is necessarily truthful or even real. Few things would surprise me less than to discover Trump has extended the ceasefire because the Iranians have thrown him a bone. And at the end of the day, I think few want the war to actually resume. And Trump, although he’s not a regular politician, might not be totally indifferent to the significant unpopularity of the war in the US.
RB: Mohammed, how do you think the Iranian government will react to that statement today from Donald Trump? … Do you think we could indeed be seeing a deal?
MK: I think the Iranian government has shown much flexibility in terms of negotiations. And it is insisting on its rights. So if the United States starts recognising Iran’s rights, the deal can be reached. Iran wants a fair deal. And US blockade of Iran is not doing any good for the diplomacy and is not doing any good for negotiations. So I think that if the United States continues with its maximalist demands and its pressure campaign against Iran, as seen during the conflict and even before that, during the past rounds of negotiations, Iran will not back down on its demands and rights, including enriching uranium.
RB: Dan, if indeed we could see a deal come to fruition very soon, on what terms do you think they might be agreeing this deal?
DP: It’s a challenge to answer that question, because the deal that the West wants from Iran … Iran can see as maximalist. We just heard Mohammed calling it maximalist, suggesting that Iran has rights that need to be respected. I have to ask with all due respect, what are these rights? We’re not talking about Iran as a country, or Iran as a people that have a lot of rights, including freedom from oppression. We’re talking about the Iranian regime, which is a criminal mafia, and the demands that the world has of them are maximalist in the sense that (they) make it difficult for them to execute their criminal activity. The US wants an end to nuclear enrichment at a weapons level, and Iran does not have a right to enrich at a weapons level. You can make a claim that under the NPT they have a right to enrich at 3.5%, and my guess is some version of that, the US and the world, an the UN nuclear agency and every other relevant player, would be willing to give them, including Israel. But they’ve been enriching at 60% and 80%, which you only do if you want a nuclear weapon, and they don’t have that right. The right to build long-range ballistic missiles that are offensive in nature — they may think they have that right, but they’ve been firing on civilians all over the Gulf and in Israel for months, and that’s not something that the world can easily accept. The right to arm, and train, and fund, and guide proxy militias all over the region as part of their “security apparatus,” this is not a right. This is messing with the sovereignty of the entire Arab region. It is madness. They don’t have the right to demand tolls from ships going through the Strait of Hormuz, which may not be international waters as such, because it’s narrow enough that all of its waters are either in Oman or Iran, but has been recognized as a critical international waterway. No, they don’t have the right to turn it into a tollbooth, or as some joke, an ayatollbooth. Last but not least, I think they’re going to get away with oppressing their people. I would like to see the Americans demand democratic reforms in Iran, if the regime is on its back foot, and maybe the criminals in charge in Iran might be given amnesty, maybe they can get to keep their plunder in the tens of billions of dollars stolen from the people of Iran, maybe that. I suspect the Americans will not demand democratic reforms, but even that is not a right the regime has. The regime does not have a right to kill tens of thousands of protesters, and to be running for almost a half century an odious police state and a horrible theocracy. So it’s difficult to negotiate with people who are misbehaving so spectacularly. And I honestly would ask Mohammed, of the things I mentioned, nuclear weapons pursuit, proxy militias around the region undermining the sovereignty of Lebanon, the oppression of their own people, what of any of this are rights that regime has? Honestly, unless you’re an apologist for a criminal mafia, what are you talking about?
RB: Mohammea, we’re going to bring you now into the discussion. I’m going to give you the right of response there.
MK: Iran has been insisting on peaceful enrichment for many years, and it signed a deal in 2015, the JCPOA, which Trump abandoned and started its maximum pressure campaign. He talks about Iran’s missile capabilities. Why not? He does not talk about Israeli bombing campaign against Palestinians in Gaza. Why does not he talk about bombings in Lebanon? And he is talking about bombings by Iran, which is a defensive act. And unlike Israel, Iran is defending itself. Israel launched operations against Iran, not just once, but twice. And this is the third time that Israel and the United States are launching a war against Iran. So Iran’s response is defensive. And he talks about the people of Iran, but what about the Palestinians who have been murdered by Israel? And he talks about the criminals in Tehran, but what about Netanyahu? Their own cabinet are against him. Their own Israelis are against him. And he is faced by criminal charges, as well as international criminal justice … ICJ is pursuing him because of acts of genocide in Gaza. International criminal court is pursuing Israelis. And there are lots of criminal charges against the Israeli prime minister, not just internationally, but inside Israel itself. Iran response is defensive. Iran did not target regional countries. It targeted U.S. bases, which operations were carried out against it. Iran targeted Israel because it was Israel which started this war. Iran does not seek a nuclear weapon, and also it does not seek a war. So Israel started this, and it is really simple. And if Israel once again dares to attack Iran again, Iran will respond in kind. This is what I have to say.
RB: I want to go back to you, Dan, just to give you the right of response to the previous answer there, but also to discuss this breaking news with you about these eight women that Trump has indicated in his post on social media that the Islamic Republic is preparing to hang. What do you make of this latest update?
DP: Well, I’m glad to see that Trump remembers the original reason for going to war, which was neither the nuclear issue nor the Strait … He promised that help is on the way. When he notes news that I suspect is true, but I can’t prove that Iran is planning to hang these eight women, and he presents that as an argument for action, which is implicitly what’s happening, that tells me that he hasn’t yet forgotten about the rights of the people of Iran. And thank you for giving me the right to reply to my friend in Tehran. He mentions my location in Tel Aviv as if it was relevant. It actually isn’t. My view would be the same regardless of where I was, except for maybe if I was in Tehran. He’s in Tehran, which means he cannot speak freely. He presents a reasonable case against Israel. Sure, Netanyahu is unpopular, and sure, Netanyahu has engaged in a very brutal and difficult to defend war in Gaza — after Hamas invaded Israel. Hamas, Iran’s proxy, killed over 1,000 people. Israel is trying to eradicate Hezbollah in Lebanon, another Iranian proxy that attacked Israel in the days after October 7th. The Lebanese government also wants Hezbollah gone — Israel and Lebanon want Hezbollah gone. He portrays this as an Israeli aggressive action. Fine, but the difference is I can speak freely. I can say Netanyahu is wrong in a million ways, and I think the Israelis are going to turf him out in elections that have to happen by October. But we both know very well that Mohammed cannot speak freely. He can’t tell us what he really thinks about the tens of thousands of people massacred in the streets by the government. When I say they’re criminals, it’s not because they’re on trial for bribery — no one can put the supreme leader in Iran on trial for bribery the way the prime minister of Israel is indeed on trial for bribery, because the regime is not democratic. The regime is autocratic. It’s a police state, and I suspect he knows very well what I’m talking about. And when he says that Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon, that is nothing short of laughable because right now we’re all talking about how to get a hold of 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium buried under rubble probably, we hope, and that may be something the Iranians can give Trump in these negotiations. Why do they exist? There is no reason whatsoever on God’s green earth to enrich uranium at over 3.5 to 3.7 percent unless you’re pursuing a nuclear weapon.
RB: Dan, so there’s a statement here from Benjamin Netanyahu saying that the threat, the existential threat of the nuclear program from Iran to Israel has been removed. Does this mean that we can remove this red line that was present in negotiations out of the equation?
DP: No. It doesn’t mean that the US will cease demanding of Iran that it promises to not enrich uranium, I would say, to over 3.5 percent — because they can do so fairly quickly. It also doesn’t mean that they won’t want the existing highly enriched uranium to be taken out of Iran. So that issue doesn’t disappear. I hope Netanyahu is right and indeed the US-American strike has eliminated the threat. However, since I’m in Israel and I can speak freely, I can tell you I don’t believe a thing Netanyahu says. So the fact that he says so doesn’t make it true. The man faces elections shortly and he’ll say whatever he needs to get elected or to at least minimize his current deficit in the polls. The same Netanyahu said after the 12-day war last June that the nuclear threat and the missile threat have been put off for generations. And a year later, of course, he uses the still-existing nuclear threat as a casus belli, and we find ourselves under missile attack. So it was generations maybe of ants and worms maybe, but not of human beings. Netanyahu says what he says on his campaign. I hope, however, that it happens to be true. And I assess it, it is true. I assess that the Israeli-American strike has significantly degraded the ability of the Iranian regime to do mischief. And when I speak of mischief, I speak also of oppressing their own people. And although the war will probably not end with the regime falling, I think all people of good faith in the world have to hope that the regime has been so degraded that the people of Iran will break it down shortly. And then Mohammed, who would himself be hanged if he said what he probably thinks, might be able to speak the truth.
RB: How do we see Qatar’s interests playing out in this current scenario? They’ve said that they’re hoping for a continuation of negotiation efforts, of mediation efforts. Where does Qatar fit into this equation?
DP: I’m sure that Qatar wants to see the ceasefire continue and the war brought to an end. I think they’re less vehement than the other Gulf nations that the war should lead to a more decisive result and that the Iranian regime maybe should fall sooner rather than later. Qatar historically has tried to play both sides, and they have been close to Iran and also close to the West. My sense is that even Qatar, having been struck by Iran, might be moving more convincingly and more decisively to the West in this equation. But they’re still somewhere in the middle, whereas the UAE and maybe Bahrain might not necessarily want the war to end with the Iranian regime feeling like it has won by the mere fact of a survival, however battered they may be, and also playing around with charging tolls for ships going through the Strait of Hormuz — because all these countries, including Qatar, need maritime trade and the transit of crude oil in particular through the whims of dictators in Tehran.
