Iranian daily suggests port blast can be sabotage to disrupt talks

Negotiations between Iran and the United States over Tehran's rapidly advancing nuclear program will move to the expert level on Wednesday, a development analysts suggest indicates the talks are progressing swiftly, according to an Associated Press opinion.

However, experts not directly involved in the discussions cautioned the AP that this step does not necessarily mean a deal is on the horizon. Instead, it shows that the initial high-level discussions between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff have not collapsed over the core issue: Tehran limiting its atomic program in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.

Kelsey Davenport, the director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association, told the AP that "agreeing to technical talks suggests both sides are expressing pragmatic, realistic objectives for the negotiations and want to explore the details." She added that Iran would likely not engage at the technical level if Washington presented maximalist demands like the dismantling of its enrichment program.

Richard Nephew, an adjunct fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who previously worked on Iran sanctions at the US State Department, told the AP that the value of expert talks hinges on an existing commitment to do something, with experts tasked with determining the specifics. Without such political agreement, he warned, the expert discussions could be unproductive.

The AP opinion also talked about the crucial role of technical experts in the 2015 nuclear deal, citing the understanding reached between then-US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Ali Akbar Salehi of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran.

The United States has positioned two aircraft carriers and a fleet of B-2 stealth bombers in the region near Iran, indicating potential military readiness amid ongoing nuclear negotiations, according to a Fox News opinion piece by Dr. Rebecca Grant, vice president of the Lexington Institute, a US-based think tank focused on defense and logistics.

“Two aircraft carriers and a fleet of B-2 stealth bombers are pointed straight at Iran,” Grant wrote. “Never before have we seen such a big forward deployment of B-2 bombers.”

She argued that a campaign to target Iran’s nuclear weapons program is “no longer far-fetched,” citing Israeli airstrikes in 2024 as having lowered the political and military risks of such an operation. “Frankly, the attacks on Iran’s air defenses carried out by Israeli F-35s and other planes last year have lowered the risk calculus,” she said.

Grant linked the deployment to President Donald Trump’s broader diplomatic strategy ahead of talks with Iran. “To keep the talks going, a big part of Trump’s strategy is to deploy to US Central Command the forces required to smash Iran’s nuclear weapons manufacturing capability,” she wrote.

The op-ed said that the United States can act unilaterally if needed. “The military calls this ‘sovereign options,’ because Trump needs no other country’s permission to launch strikes from aircraft carriers and bombers,” she said.

According to Grant, the deployment of six B-2 bombers to Diego Garcia—capable of delivering 30,000-lb. bunker-busting bombs—suggests planning for sustained precision strikes on Iran’s underground facilities.

The Islamic Republic is compelled to yield to demands made by the United States in ongoing negotiations primarily because the US retains the option of military action, according to Jalil Roshandel, a professor of international relations.

Roshandel told Iran International that the goals in the talks see Tehran seeking relief from sanctions and financial difficulties, while Washington aims to strip Iran of any military capability.

Roshandel said that “the potential for a US military strike always exists over the Islamic Republic's head," serving as an enforcement mechanism for US demands."It is for this reason that the Islamic Republic is forced to submit to America's demands.”

But the fundamental question remains: who is the real seditionist? Is it the Iranian people protesting the country’s dire conditions—or is it Khamenei himself, who has held power for over three decades? Who is responsible for the current state of affairs that has him so worried? Who has ruled the country and made all major decisions over the past 36 years—ordinary citizens or Khamenei himself?

Khamenei labeling public protests as "sedition" and dismissing demonstrators as seditious is nothing new. This has always been his approach. He has never been willing to acknowledge that Iranian citizens are reacting to the country's deteriorating conditions, which are a direct result of his policies as supreme leader. He has consistently refused to recognize these protests as legitimate, branding them as riots in order to justify their suppression.

He views the citizens who took to the streets in dozens of cities during the 2017, 2019, and 2022 uprisings as being influenced by foreign enemies. But is this really plausible? Khamenei refuses to accept that these protests are domestic and popular in nature. He uses the label of unrest to delegitimize them.

If Khamenei is worried about new protests, he should understand that this fear stems from his own actions. The country’s current state—one that the majority of people reject—is the product of 36 years under his rule, and a decade before that under Khomeini.

For 46 years, no one else has governed Iran. Even the monarchy, which the Islamic Republic continues to criticize and compare itself to, fares better in many metrics. In contrast, the Islamic Republic has dragged the country backward.

After 46 years in power, it is no longer acceptable for the Islamic Republic to measure itself against a government from half a century ago. And even when this comparison is made, in the minds of many Iranians, the Pahlavi era wins, while the Islamic Republic is clearly the loser.

While other nations have advanced in less time, Iran under the Islamic Republic has stagnated or regressed. Dubai and Qatar have achieved modern prosperity in under 46 years. China, now an economic superpower, began its development path after the Islamic Republic came to power—but unlike Iran, it made real progress. The Islamic Republic squandered these decades, pushed the country into ruin, and sacrificed three generations in the process—yet refuses to step aside. Meanwhile, those who object to these conditions are called seditious.

When Khamenei assumed power in 1989, the exchange rate was 1,200 rials to the US dollar. After 36 years of his leadership, it has surpassed one million—a depreciation of 87,000 percent. This isn't mere exaggeration; it’s verifiable with a basic calculation. And still, he labels public protests as sedition and threatens suppression—though such threats have long lost their force.

In just the past four years, the dollar has surged from around 200,000 rials to 1,040,000—more than a fivefold increase. So why wouldn’t people expect the currency to plunge further, possibly hitting one billion rials, if the current trajectory and war-driven policies continue?

Given this economic collapse—and the fact that widespread poverty and dissatisfaction are direct consequences of Khamenei’s rule—how can he possibly justify calling protesters seditious?

Even some of Khamenei’s own allies, like former deputy parliament speaker Mohammadreza Bahonar, have admitted that inflation has hovered at 40 percent for the past seven years. Inflation, in essence, is a legalized form of theft by the state—citizens go to sleep at night and wake up to find their savings eroded.

Even former president Hassan Rouhani, a figure deeply entrenched in Iran’s security apparatus, has openly stated that the people are unhappy.

When individuals who played key roles in cracking down on the 2017 and 2019 protests now speak of widespread dissatisfaction, how can Khamenei still claim these movements are foreign-led?

Many Islamic Republic officials have warned that the public will once again take to the streets—an outcome of the government’s own policies. If anything needs to change, it is the behavior of those in power, not the people.

Numerous insiders have acknowledged the failures of the Islamic Republic’s domestic and foreign policies, especially regarding the US and Israel. Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guard’s staunch anti-American and anti-Israeli stance has not only devastated the economy but also edged the country closer to a potentially catastrophic war.

Sanctions, largely driven by Tehran’s belligerent foreign policy, have primarily harmed ordinary Iranians—while enriching commanders of the Revolutionary Guard.

Mohammad Hossein Adeli, a former Central Bank governor, revealed that in just one year, efforts to circumvent sanctions—managed by the Revolutionary Guard—cost the country $50 billion.

Where did that money go? Beyond international middlemen, much of it ended up in the hands of IRGC commanders and oil smuggling networks. They call it “bypassing sanctions,” but in practice, it’s looting the nation while claiming sacrifice and heroism.

Naturally, the Guard will seek to protect this $50 billion racket—so it continues echoing anti-American policies. After all, it’s the people who pay the price, not the IRGC.

The reality is that through flawed domestic and foreign policies, the Islamic Republic has pushed Iran into a full-blown crisis. Public frustration and anger towards the ruling system is undeniable. The responsibility for this crisis rests squarely on Ali Khamenei and the government he leads.

Ultimately, public protests driven by economic collapse, corruption, and authoritarianism cannot be ignored—and they will inevitably erupt again. But the core question remains: in a country where even officials acknowledge the people's dissatisfaction, who is the real source of sedition—the people, or Ali Khamenei?

The rally that was supposed to be a celebration of women, became the start of a six-day battle against the newly imposed Islamic dress code on them. It was perhaps the earliest sign that the revolution they had fought for had been hijacked.

Only weeks before, many of these same women—students, doctors, lawyers, nurses, teachers, activists—had marched against the dictatorial rule of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, fighting for freedom, democracy, and equality, unaware that they would become the first victims of Iran’s Islamization led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

On March 7, 1979, Khomeini decreed that all women working in government offices must heed Islamic diktats and cover their hair. The following day, women arriving at work unveiled were turned away.

Many felt this was not about clothes, but control. They saw it as an attempt to erase women from public life. And they fought back.

“We did not rise to go back,” thousands chanted marching from the University of Tehran toward the Prime Minister’s office. “In the dawn of freedom, women’s rights are missing.”

The peaceful demonstration was met with brute force. Islamist revolutionaries and pro-Khomeini mobs stormed the march with sticks and knives. Dissenting women were beaten and stabbed. They were called enemies of Islam and agents of the West.

But they did not back down.

For six days, they marched through the streets of Tehran, defying the cold, the growing danger, and the bitter sneering of those who dismissed their struggle as secondary to the revolutionary cause.

The dismissive view was by no means limited to Iranian masses. It was shared by many Western intellectuals who, bewitched by the revolution in Iran, ignored or actively justified the repression of the new regime.

Thinkers afar: enablers and allies

While feminists like French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir and American writer Kate Millett stood in solidarity with women in Iran, others like de Beauvoir’s compatriot Michel Foucault helped legitimize the Islamic Republic.

De Beauvoir recognized the Iranian women’s fight as part of the global struggle for gender equality, helping establish the International Committee for Women’s Rights (CIDF) to amplify their voices. Millett traveled to Iran to document their struggle and was arrested and expelled for her efforts.

Foucault also visited Iran but had a wholly different view of the events. He romanticized the revolution, reducing it to a rejection of Western imperialism and ignoring its catastrophic consequences for women and dissidents. He brushed aside human rights concerns as Western biases, a framing that persists in various forms to this date.

Another lasting influence in Western intellectual circles is Palestinian-American philosopher and literary critic Edward Said.

Said’s most influential work, Orientalism, was published a year before the revolution in Iran. He focused on Western narratives about the East. While many of his arguments against colonialism were valid, they were weaponized by Islamists to deflect criticism.

Said, unlike Foucault, never glorified Iran’s transformation. Others used his emphasis on culture, however, to depict forced veiling and gender segregation as cultural differences rather than human rights violations, failing to—or choosing not to— challenge the repression in a meaningful way.

A Legacy of Resistance

Back in Iran, the forced veiling of women was completed and codified in 1983. Those daring to flout the law would be punished by official enforcers or emboldened thugs. The Six-Day Protest of 1979 was defeated.

But it heralded a long fight for equality that’s continued to this date.

In 2022, the world watched as Iranians across Iran took to the streets after a 22-year-old Kurdish woman named Mahsa Amini died in custody, having been detained for not covering her hair fully.

Amini’s tragic death—a state murder by all accounts—ignited the largest uprising against the Islamic Republic. Young men tore down posters of supreme leader Ali Khamenei as young women set their scarves on fire.

Their slogan? “Woman, Life, Freedom.”

The struggle against hijab and gender apartheid is not just an Iranian issue—it is a global human rights fight. Iranian and Afghan women continue to resist, even as the Islamic Republic and the Taliban impose laws aimed at erasing them from public life.

What happened on March 8, 1979, is not just history, it is a warning. Revisiting that eventful day and what has happened in Iran since, may help Western intellectuals and politicians see mandatory hijab for what it is: systemic, religious oppression, not a symbol of cultural relativism.

When enforced by law, hijab is not a cultural practice. It is a means of control. Iranian and Afghan women are calling for solidarity, demanding that the world listen to them rather than the Foucaults of the world.

International Women’s Day is a day to honor those who fought and are fighting for equality. It also has to be a day to reject the view that dismisses their struggle, and enables their oppressors.

Opinion expressed by the author are not necessarily the views of Iran International.