کانال اختصاصی رضا نصری

گفت‌وگو با خبرآنلاین:

تبیین «طرح مودت»:

https://www.khabaronline.ir/news/2001684/%D9%88%D9%81%D8%A7%D9%82-%D9%85%D9%84%DB%8C-%D9%81%D9%82%D8%B7-%DB%8C%DA%A9-%D8%B4%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%B3%DB%8C-%D9%88-%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AA%DB%8C%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%84-%D9%86%DB%8C%D8%B3%D8%AA-%D8%B6%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA-%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%86

The language surrounding Iran, especially in Western and some regional narratives, is heavily influenced by Israel and distorts the reality of the situation.

Terms like “regime” instead of "government", “proxies” for grassroots "liberation movements", and “terrorists” or “militias” for those resisting occupation are used to misguide policies on Iran.

Iran’s regional actions are labeled as “expansionist ambitions,” while similar actions by others are seen as "alliances." Its nuclear program is often framed as a “nuclear threat.” Iran’s leadership is reduced to “mullas” or “Ayatollahs,” ignoring the complexity of Iran’s political scene.

This biased language, pushed by Israel, is not just designed to frame Iran but to divert attention from its own illegal actions and occupation. For example, by labeling liberation movements as "terrorists" or "militias," Israel shifts focus away from its role as an occupier. Similarly, by labeling Iran as a “destabilizing actor,” the true context is obscured, and attention is diverted from the activities of other regional players.

Regional countries and those genuinely committed to dialogue should avoid using this Israeli-manufactured terminology. Employing neutral terms like "government", "liberation movements", and "nuclear program" offers a more realistic perspective on Iran and the true dynamics of the region, opening up space for diplomacy.

https://x.com/RezaNasri1/status/1868658024199368886?s=19

‏سیاست لبنسراوم (Lebensraum) یا «فضای حیاتی» مفهومی ایدئولوژیک بود که در اوایل قرن بیستم توسط نازی‌های آلمان، به‌ویژه شخص آدولف هیتلر، برای توجیه توسعه‌طلبی و تجاوز به سرزمین‌های دیگر به‌کار گرفته شد.

این ایده بر این باور استوار بود که آلمان به سرزمین‌های بیشتری نیاز دارد تا جمعیت رو به رشد خود را اسکان دهد، منابع طبیعی بیشتری برای تداوم سیاست‌های توسعه‌طلبانه خود کسب کند، و امنیت غذایی خود را تضمین کند. هیتلر این سیاست را به گسترش قلمرو به شرق اروپا، به‌ویژه لهستان و اتحاد جماهیر شوروی، مرتبط کرد و آن را ضروری برای بقای "نژاد برتر آریایی" دانست.

اجرای لبنسراوم با پاکسازی قومی، اخراج یا نابودی جمعیت‌های غیرآلمانی، و اشغال سرزمین‌ها همراه بود که به جنایات جنگی، نسل‌کشی، و آغاز جنگ جهانی دوم منجر شد. این سیاست اکنون به‌عنوان نمادی از ایدئولوژی‌های توسعه‌طلبانه و خشونت‌آمیز شناخته می‌شود که پیامدهای فاجعه‌باری برای بشریت به همراه داشت.

سیاست لبنسراوم دقیقا مبنای اقداماتی است که رژیم صهیونسیتی انجام می‌دهد؛ و ضمیمه بلندی‌های جولان و ادعای ایجاد «منطقه حائل» در سوریه نیز در همین راستا قابل بررسی است.

تبیین اقدامات رژیم اسرائیل در این چارچوب - از جانب مقامات، روزنامه‌نگاران و تحلیلگران- به درک بهتر ماهیت این رژیم و تهدید آن برای صلح و امنیت بین‌المللی کمک خواهد کرد.

https://x.com/RezaNasri1/status/1866366341021634892?s=19

Discussions on Iran in U.S. foreign policy circles are often shaped by narratives pushed by elements of the Iranian opposition, who aim to steer decision-making to serve their own agendas. These narratives are built on flawed assumptions that misrepresent the realities of Iran’s internal affairs and regional actions.

Some of these flawed assumptions were reasserted in the recent Council on Foreign Relations (@CFR_org) discussion:

1. Iran is constantly on the edge of unrest, and Western intervention could bring down its government.

This view oversimplifies the complexity of Iran's socio-political dynamics and the resilience of its political establishment. While protests and dissent occur—as in many countries—Iran’s institutions have remained remarkably stable over the years, even under severe external pressures like sanctions, isolation, targeted assassinations, cyberattacks and covert operations. Predicting an imminent collapse only leads to misguided and counterproductive policies.

2. The Iranian people welcome sanctions and the suffering they cause.

This claim is completely false and lacks both evidence and common sense. Sanctions have a devastating impact on ordinary Iranians, leading to inflation, unemployment, and shortages of essential goods, with the most vulnerable populations suffering the most. The idea that any nation would welcome such economic hardship is not only absurd but dehumanizing. Such assertions are often repeated by individuals who haven’t set foot in Iran in over forty years.

3. Iran’s actions in the region are driven by ideological motives.

This is yet another caricature that a Western audience may be prone to believe. Iran’s regional policies are primarily pragmatic, focused on security concerns. Its actions are often reactionary, aimed at countering perceived threats and constant external pressure. Iran's security policy is influenced by U.S. military bases on its borders, Takfiri terrorist groups to the East and West, and Israeli nuclear warheads pointed at it, all creating a tense and challenging security landscape. Reducing Iran's policies to mere ideology distorts Tehran's motivations and overlooks the broader geopolitical context.

4. Iran is an irrational actor that should not be treated as a 'normal' state.

Contrary to this claim, Iran operates as a rational actor, making calculated decisions to protect its national interests. Its engagement in the 2015 nuclear deal and ongoing regional diplomacy reflect pragmatism, not irrationality. Its recent normalization of relations with Saudi Arabia—once considered impossible by the same opposition—is another example. Portraying Iran as exceptional or irrational is a tactic to undermine its legitimate security concerns and exclude it from the international arena. It also conveniently fuels fear around Iran's nuclear program, making a balanced and fair diplomatic solution exceedingly difficult.

These flawed premises provide the Iranian opposition an opportunity to gain visibility on the political stage and encourage policies like "abandoning diplomacy" and "supporting civil society," which often serve as euphemisms for regime change.

But despite their assertions, this approach has been tried repeatedly over the past four decades and has consistently failed to meet any of the Western countries' stated objectives. Nevertheless, it continues to serve the narrow interests of the opposition.

This is why they also consistently work to silence alternative voices and "deny platforms" to those who may offer a more nuanced and realistic perspectives.


https://x.com/RezaNasri1/status/1865002862855512172?s=19

لابی‌های اسرائیل همواره تلاش کرده‌اند هرآنچه به‌حق به رژیم اسرائیل نسبت داده می‌شود، با طرح اتهاماتی مشابه، به ایران نیز منتسب کنند تا در نبرد افکار عمومی و روایت‌ها نوعی «تعادل» برقرار کنند.

اگر اسرائیل به آپارتاید متهم می‌شود، تلاش می‌کنند واژه «آپارتاید» را در قالب اتهام «آپارتاید جنسیتی» به ایران نیز نسبت دهند. اگر اسرائیل به اشغالگری متهم است، بحث اشغال جزایر سه‌گانه را علیه ایران مطرح می‌کنند؛ و اگر اسرائیل به‌دلیل نقض کنوانسیون نسل‌کشی در دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری محاکمه می‌شود، ایران را نیز به نقض کنوانسیون منع تبعیض نژادی متهم می‌کنند.

ضروری است با اتهام اشغال جزایر سه‌گانه از طریق دیپلماسی عمومی و تداوم اقدامات رسانه‌ای به صورت جدی مقابله شود.

اقدامات و گفتمان سنجیده دکتر پزشکیان، از جمله انتصاب چهره‌های شایسته از اقوام و اقلیت‌ها در مناصب کلیدی مدیریتی، گامی مؤثر در مقابله با اتهامات تبعیض قومی و نژادی علیه ایران خواهد بود و لازم است این مسیر ادامه پیدا کند.

https://x.com/RezaNasri1/status/1864221075946479707?s=19