WANA (Mar 05) – “Maintaining independence comes at a cost, and Iran has always paid that price. Since the early days of the Islamic Revolution, economic pressures, sanctions, military threats, and proxy wars have all been designed to turn Iran into a submissive player in the international system.”

 

Seyed Abbas Araqchi, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister, emphasized that “Iran does not buy its security—it builds it.” He stated, “We do not depend on others for support; rather, we rely on our own knowledge, strength, and internal capacities to defend ourselves.”

 

In a written commentary, he further stressed that Iran’s priority is “to maintain independence, strengthen domestic capabilities, and pursue a path rooted in national interests.”

 

Araqchi also highlighted a key historical lesson: “Nations that have built their security on dependency have, in critical moments, fallen victim to the shifting priorities of their so-called guarantors.”

 

Full Commentary: “Chaos in the White House; Confusion in Global Politics”

Politics is not a simple game. Sometimes, a single official meeting can reveal more hidden truths about power than hundreds of diplomatic statements. The recent dispute in the White House between Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, and Volodymyr Zelensky was not just a routine disagreement. It exposed deep fractures widening within the international system.

 

Speculation surrounding this incident is rampant. Was this confrontation deliberately orchestrated? Did it spiral out of control? Was it intended to send a message to domestic and foreign audiences, or does it signal a failure in the coordination of U.S. foreign policy? What is clear is that this event provided a glimpse into an increasingly chaotic world where decisions are no longer made in a vacuum.

 

Crisis at the Heart of Western Power

For years, Washington positioned itself as the central decision-maker of the Western world. But today, that position is being challenged. The White House dispute symbolized strategic doubts, diplomatic uncertainties, and unresolved conflicts within the Western bloc.

 

The Trump administration entered the global stage with the slogan of restoring “swift peace.” A promise many considered overly optimistic has now become an added pressure on the U.S. president and his vice president. Trump and Vance now face a real challenge: Can they fulfill their commitments at a time when war entangles the interests of many global players?

 

Ukraine: From Dependence to Defiance

One of the key messages of this confrontation was Ukraine’s shifting role in global power dynamics. Zelensky, who was heavily reliant on Western support at the beginning of the war, now stands firm in the White House, challenging the U.S. president. This marks a transformation—countries that have long depended on Washington’s backing are no longer willing to be treated as subordinates.

 

Whether as an independent player or a pawn in the grand chessboard of global power, Ukraine has demonstrated that even smaller allies must pay the price to maintain their dignity and standing.

 

Europe and the Shadow of Deepening Divisions

A significant question remains: How will Europe react? Will it maintain a united front in support of Ukraine, or will this dispute expose deeper fractures within the Western alliance?

 

France, Germany, and other European allies initially adopted a more cautious stance on the Ukraine war. Differences in defense and security policies have existed from the start. Now, with the public clash between White House leaders and Zelensky, these divisions are becoming undeniable.

 

European nations, which have approached the crisis in Eastern Europe with caution, must now face a critical question: Does Washington still have the power and determination to lead a united Western front?

 

Moscow: Observer or Architect?

This event has been closely monitored in Moscow. Russia has long argued that the Western alliance is fragile and riddled with internal tensions. The recent White House dispute reinforces this narrative, portraying the opposing camp as more fractured than many believe.

 

But beyond observation, Moscow is no longer a passive player. The Ukraine war and subsequent developments have given Russia an opportunity to refine its strategic maneuvers.

 

On one front, Russia is deepening its strategic partnership with China. On another, it is actively working to reshape global power dynamics through strengthened ties with developing nations. Expanding economic engagements with BRICS countries, bolstering security cooperation with regional partners, and reducing dependency on Western financial systems all illustrate Russia’s evolving global strategy.

 

Europe’s shifting stance toward Russia is also evident. Some European countries, including Hungary and Slovakia, have adopted more nuanced positions, resisting Brussels’ anti-Russian policies. These divergences could weaken Western unity—a vulnerability that Moscow is keen to exploit.

 

When Domestic Politics Overshadows Diplomacy

One of the most significant revelations from this dispute is the extent to which domestic politics influences U.S. foreign policy. Trump and Vance, while dealing with major international challenges, are deeply entangled in internal political struggles.

 

Elections, partisan rivalries, and domestic pressures have increasingly driven U.S. diplomatic decisions, shifting priorities from strategic interests to short-term political gains.

 

This uncertainty presents challenges not only for the U.S. but also for its allies. The unpredictability of American foreign policy in such a climate raises concerns about Washington’s reliability on the global stage.

 

Iran: The Path of Wisdom and Independence

Amidst this global turbulence, the Islamic Republic of Iran carefully analyzes the unfolding events. The growing disorder in international politics threatens global stability and security. Unlike many actors who engage in reckless rhetoric and impulsive policies, Iran remains committed to principles centered on independence, mutual respect, and constructive engagement.

 

But Iran’s independence is not a coincidence or the result of external constraints—it is a conscious choice, a strategic decision, and a fundamental pillar of its foreign policy.

 

Unlike some nations that seek security and stability through dependence on foreign powers, Iran has long recognized that reliance on external forces leads only to instability and the erosion of national sovereignty. True security does not come from the guarantees of extra-regional powers but from internal strength, national resilience, and self-reliance.

 

For this reason, Iran has chosen a different path—one where its fate is not dictated by external decisions, and its policies are shaped by national interests rather than foreign recommendations.

 

Maintaining independence comes at a cost, and Iran has always paid that price. From the early days of the Islamic Revolution, economic pressures, sanctions, military threats, and proxy wars were all aimed at turning Iran into a submissive player in the international system.

 

However, contrary to the expectations of its adversaries, Iran has stood firm. Rather than succumbing to pressure, it has leveraged its internal capacities to continue its path of development and progress. This conscious choice has become a defining principle: “Iran does not buy its security—it builds it.”

 

We do not depend on others for protection. Instead, we defend ourselves through our knowledge, strength, and domestic capabilities.

 

History has shown that nations that base their security on external dependency ultimately fall victim to shifting priorities of their so-called protectors. Examples of this are visible across the world—governments that placed their trust in great power security guarantees, only to be abandoned at critical moments.

 

But Iran has learned this historical lesson well. Independence is not just a slogan—it is an absolute necessity.

 

This perspective has shaped Iran’s foreign policy, ensuring that it neither relies on empty foreign promises nor wavers in the face of threats.

 

While many international actors tie their security to fragile and temporary alliances, Iran has chosen a different course—one based on self-sufficiency, independent progress, and resilience against external pressures.

 

Iran does not seek legitimacy through the approval of others. Its legitimacy stems from the will of its people and its independent policies.

 

Iran made its choice long ago. A choice where conditional support from global powers, unstable diplomatic promises, and foreign threats do not dictate its decisions. What matters for Iran is preserving its independence, strengthening its domestic capabilities, and pursuing a path driven by national interests.

 

In a world where global powers are entangled in conflicts and uncertain alliances, Iran’s steadfastness proves that dependency is not just a risk—it is a strategic mistake.

 

This is a lesson that history has taught us time and again—and one that we will not only uphold but also pass on to future generations.