NOURNEWS - The unfortunate assassination of the martyred scientist "Mohsen Fakhrizadeh" and the reasons for the enemy to commit this criminal act, as well as the measures that should be put on the agenda in response to the main defendants are the most important issues in the Iranian political and media space over the past three days.
Like many other important issues that are sometimes raised from the point of view of decision-making and strategy determination, such an atmosphere has been formed in the comments on this issue.
An examination of the statements of officials, including the interview of Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, some members of parliament, etc., after the assassination of Martyr Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, shows that there are clearly two approaches in this regard.
Near approach to the government believes that one of the main goals of this action is to provoke Iran to take tough countermeasures, so providing any intensity of action is tough, playing on enemy soil and the country can take advantage of developments in the international arena. In particular, it eliminates the change of the American president to lift the sanctions and so on.
In return; the view of stubborn representatives, especially in the Iranian parliament, is to respond decisively, even in the form of military operations and accepting its costs. Proponents of this approach see the harsh response as a necessary step to punish and stop the enemy, and believe that non-response will lead to the practice of dissidents and increase their motivation to take further action.
A closer look at the two dominant theories in the country's political space raises very important questions that need to be answered.
Critics of the first theory ask the question, what is the guarantee that these measures will not continue and will not be generalized to higher levels and authorities and more sensitive centers, given the persistence of restraint? What, if the enemy is convinced that we are going to exercise restraint even until the current US administration changes and a new administration is established in the White House, why should he not seize this opportunity and strike more severe blows?
Opponents of the second theory, meanwhile, argue that pursuing a tough response approach could increase the risk of a full-scale war and encourage the enemy to retaliate.
Critics of the second approach raise the question of whether the country should enter the country in a full-blown and damaging war and through it extensive material and human damage (even assuming major damage from Iran to the enemy). Can it be argued that the harsh response and its consequences were based on national interests?
It is very clear that war is never the first option in the face of threats, and according to political scientists, war begins when diplomacy is over. On the other hand, diplomacy can serve the interests of the country when it has strong political, social and military support.
Certainly, the use of diplomacy tools in a situation where perceptions indicate limitations, inability and desperation on the part of the negotiator to protect their interests, certainly cannot serve the national interest.
It is important to note that proponents of the diplomatic approach see the use of this tool as a clever use of soft power and in no way consider it an act of "passivity" or commitment. In order to prove their point of view, this spectrum provides historical and citationable evidences in order to avoid the accusation of passivity and commitment.
On the other hand, the proponents of the decisive response theory, by explaining the political and military situation of the enemy, emphasize that the decisive blow, while punishing the enemy, has taken the initiative out of the hands of the enemy due to the increased costs of retaliation. And will make him hesitant and passive in deciding whether to take countermeasures or to continue previous behaviors, and therefore the possibility of "war formation" in pursuing this approach is largely ruled out.
Now, according to these two approaches, what can be a logical and correct solution that does not burn the potential opportunities of the country to relieve some of the pressures, and does not damage the deterrent power of the country and does not encourage the enemy to take further hostile actions?
Naturally, the right way to deal with this issue is to strengthen the "active deterrence" approach, which can only be achieved through the intelligent use of the set of political, intelligence, and military capabilities and the implementation of "combined and effective plans."
It should not be forgotten that the enemy's confrontation with the Iranian nation in recent years has been done with the same approach and based on a combined and multi-layered war in different dimensions, and basically the designed campaign against our country is not one-dimensional that can be countered with one-dimensional solutions.
The " war in gray zone " strategy used by the United States and its allies against Iran in recent years is also based on a combined confrontation approach.
Relevant institutions in our country have shown that they have the experience, expertise and efficiency to design and perform appropriate combination measures to maintain deterrence. This can only be achieved by avoiding zero-sum and zero-sum views, forming consensus at the level of decision-makers and the support of social, political and media institutions.
A noteworthy point in this regard is the formation of some unconscious or sometimes conscious actions that have emerged in the past few days with the approach of destroying and weakening the country's security, intelligence and military institutions and has actually played an effective role in the enemy's puzzle to reduce our country's counterattack. .
A cursory glance at the headlines and content of hostile media and the frequency of hot keywords in the social media space attributed to them reveals exactly this map.
According to what has been said; Measures based on active deterrence require nothing but political and national cohesion and trust in responsible institutions, and distancing oneself from it for any reason or excuse by any person or movement increases the enemy's acting power and reduces the active capacity to pursue necessary actions. So the necessary countermeasures will be in a rational atmosphere and free from destructive haste.
The country is in a very special situation, the successful and dignified passage of which requires calm and smart and effective measures.
Although the emotional and hasty speeches and behaviors mentioned by the supporters of the two spectrums and the polarization of the political and social atmosphere of the country will not prevent the appropriate and appropriate decision by the relevant institutions, but the continuation of such actions definitely will not give a hopeful message to the resilient public, patient and intelligent people of Iran who want to pass the current difficult situation with dignity and maintain the independence, authority and all-round upliftment of the country.
NOURNEWS