Take the Warnings for Serious

One. In 2005, when the Iranian Reformist president Mohammad Khatami handed over the executive body to the new government, Iran’s foreign relations were at the peak; and attempts by the Zionist regime and radical strands inside the US ruling board to pressurize Iran had fallen in vein due to Iran’s cordial relations with its regional and international partners. Unfortunately, in the Ninth Administration, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced and enforced a new diplomatic agenda; the outcomes of which were seen in the Ninth and Tenth administrations. During these years, complicated challenges against Iran have emerged. Despite being dubbed as “crumbled papers” by the president, international sanction resolutions have hit hard the people and regarded by the experts as deleterious to the national interests.

Along the pressures (largely manifested in UN-approved sanction resolutions), human rights’ allegations caused by certain domestic measures served as pretexts that provided an opportunity for the enemies of the country to portray Iran and the Islamic Republic as an unreasonable entity. Today, in this critical, complicated situation, controversies over the alleged assassination plot of the Saudi ambassador to Washington by the IRGC Qods Corps, is a new challenge thrown at Iran that is already running the gauntlet. If left open, the new chapter can serve as a prelude to increase international pressures and pave the way for intervention in Iranian affairs.

Two. More time and intelligence is required to talk about the latest US’ allegation, which have been met with enthusiasm by Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf Cooperation Council member; but even by building our analysis upon the Iranian officials’ reaction, which was categorical rejection of he accusations, the magnitude of Washington’s dangerous game would not become less, since it was voiced at the highest judicial and political levels of the US’ ruling system. The US president and security officials keep on insisting that there are adequate credible documents which call for international and regional action against Iran. Now the foreign policy experts face these questions: what are the objectives of the US, the West, Saudi Arabia and other parties supporting the plan? Will the new US’ measure have follow-ups? Or is this merely the propaganda dimension of a larger plan?

Three. The Arab World is undergoing popular movements: three Arab dictators have been deposed and three other are on the brink of transformative changes. Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries have faced waves of opposition after Syria, Yemen and Bahrain. The Arab government must carry out some reforms in their modus operandi or otherwise be prepared to face the same problems.

There are few Middle East countries, such as Turkey, that have survived –and even taken advantage of- the situation due to their relatively democratic rule and impressive economic record. Turkey used much of its democratic capacity to take the helm of the Arab movements, while Saudi Arabia failed to do so and Iran's efforts to influence the movements have fallen flat due to the post-2009 election unfolding events. Washington’s anti-Iranian plan could have been prepared as a response to Iran’s domestic and foreign situation and the Arab World’s developments. The US does not want the pro-democracy wave of the Arab World to turn into an anti-US and anti-Israeli wave, hence efforts to aggravate the already plagued-with-misunderstanding relations between Iran and Arabs.

Four. Cognizant of these threats and the recent regional developments, the former Iranian president called for vigilance against foreign threats. Khatami’s message served a dual purpose: for inside, to preclude any measures which are conducive to foreign intervention, and for the outside, to know that Iran would not yield to pressure, despite the domestic differences.

Five. The high-ranking Iranian officials should heed the concerns expressed by the Islamic Revolution’s sympathizers and to understand that the key to regulating current threats away is to cut off certain political groups from the diplomatic decision-making process.