While the report emphasizes that Iran is not seeking to build nuclear weapons, it simultaneously highlights cyber threats, cooperation with Russia and China, and military support for Moscow, in an attempt to justify the policy of maximum pressure.
On the other hand, the emphasis on US-Russia negotiations in Riyadh as a model for other compromises, including bringing Western Asian countries to the negotiating table with the Zionist regime, shows that Washington still emphasizes a combination of diplomacy and pressure.
Nuclear Ambiguity and Continuation of Pressure Policy
One of the US's usual tactics in dealing with Iran is to create ambiguity about Tehran's nuclear program.
This policy, especially in US intelligence reports, has always been used as a tool to justify sanctions and economic pressure against Iran.
In the recent report, while acknowledging that "Iran's leadership has not issued a license for a nuclear weapons program," it is claimed that Tehran may resume the program under pressure.
This double-talk has no purpose other than to continue the policy of Iranophobia and maintain international pressure against Iran.
In this regard, the report indirectly suggests that there is a possibility of a change in Iran's nuclear strategy, while these accusations are made without presenting any credible evidence or documents.
Such an approach is not only seen in Trump's policies but also in Washington's overall strategies towards Tehran.
Trump and the Portrayal as a "Man of Peace"
Trump and his senior officials have repeatedly tried to justify their tough policies against Iran within the framework of "peace diplomacy."
While sanctions against Iran have been intensified again, US officials claim they are ready to negotiate with Tehran.
This approach is part of Washington's strategy to maintain maximum pressure while showing readiness for dialogue.
The recent US intelligence agencies' report is also formulated in this context.
On the one hand, Iran is introduced as a threat to cyber and regional security, and on the other hand, Trump's policies are portrayed as efforts to maintain global peace.
This obvious contradiction shows that Washington is more interested in imposing its conditions on Tehran than in seeking a real solution.
Justification of Maximum Pressure and Creation of International Consensus
The way US intelligence reports are formulated suggests that their primary goal is to legitimize economic and sanctions pressure against Iran. In the recent report, while referencing "Iran's cyber threats" and "military support for Russia," an attempt has been made to portray Tehran as a disruptive player in the international system. This portrayal can serve as a precursor to new sanctions or other restrictive measures against Iran.
Furthermore, the claim of Tehran's cooperation with China, Russia, and North Korea can be interpreted as part of the US effort to create an international consensus against Iran. Washington is well aware that it can only make its maximum pressure policies more effective by bringing its allies on board. In this context, the allegations related to biological activities and cyber attacks are also an attempt to expand the scope of threats attributed to Iran, in order to mobilize more countries against Tehran.
Escaping Internal Crises with Iranophobia
One of the prominent reasons for highlighting the Iranian threat in American reports is the attempt to divert public attention from Washington's internal crises. Trump's failure to deliver on his promises regarding economic prosperity, the continuous decline of the stock market, and the serious confrontation with Canada, Mexico, Panama, and Europe over Trump's excessive demands have put the White House in a difficult position. In such circumstances, one of America's old strategies is to use the "crisis shield" to escape internal problems.
The recent US intelligence agencies' report is more aligned with Washington's overall strategies to maintain maximum pressure against Iran and create a global consensus, rather than being based on field realities. The US's dual policy, which on the one hand invites Iran to negotiations and on the other hand continues to impose sanctions and threats, demonstrates Washington's lack of sincerity in the path of diplomacy.
NOURNEWS