Bekai: Iran has experience and is not fooled / The contradictory positions of the American governing body are a sign of confusion.
🔹 Ismail Bakkei, spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in response to a question about the inconsistency in the behavior of American officials - from verbal threats by Trump and Rubio that Iran's work will not be completed to sending names in a soft tone to the Supreme Secretary of State - suggesting the possibility of an operation by the country's National Security Council: suggesting a possibility of an operation by the National Security Council. involved, which of course is not impossible, it must be remembered that every act of deception requires two parties; Cheater and cheater. Our answer is clear: we were not deceived and we will not be deceived; Because this is not our first experience in dealing with American statesmen. We have never forgotten that during the military attack on June 13, 1404, the American president tweeted just half an hour before the ground attack began and claimed that negotiations with the Iranians were still ongoing. The diplomatic system makes a decision out of full respect for the experiences of the last two years and previous meetings such as 2015 and 2018.
🔹 The spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, explaining the origins of the multiplicity of positions in the governing body of the United States, stated: It is likely that different voices will be heard in the layers of American power; Voices that partly reflect the serious and cumulative demand of public opinion and the American nation. The objective fact is that American society is tired and very angry with Israel's tyrannical behavior that burdens American citizens. This is clearly evident both in valid surveys and polls and in widespread street protest in this country. Therefore, it is not far from the idea that parts of Washington's decision-making structure have come to recognize and recognize that America's reputation, national wealth and global status should not be dedicated to a regime that defined its identity and survival solely by the constant war and endless bloodshed in the region. Emphasizing that the criterion of the Islamic Republic of Iran is always Washington's field pragmatism and not rhetoric, Bakay noted: Although we see diverse opinions and voices, what ultimately determines is the concrete behavior of the American administration. These contradictory positions and duplicitous behaviors are, above all, a sign of deep confusion within their governance structure and raise this fundamental question in front of global public opinion, who is the real decision maker in the United States and who should the international community talk to? Do all roads really end in Tel Aviv in the structure of American foreign policy? This is a mystery that Washington's leaders, if they have concerns about their credibility, independence and international standing, need to find a clear answer as soon as possible.