WANA (May 21) – “Power is not something to be granted — it must be built, and the Islamic Republic has decided to build it on its own.” This was the core message delivered by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, during a recent speech commemorating the late President Ebrahim Raisi. Ayatollah Khamenei’s remarks came in response to what he perceives as a multi-layered strategy by the United States in ongoing nuclear talks — a strategy aimed at weakening Iran’s strength.

 

Addressing recent American statements calling for the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, Ayatollah Khamenei offered a firm and direct rebuttal to the West’s recurring demands: “To say ‘we won’t allow Iran to enrich uranium’ — that’s an outrageous statement. No one is waiting for permission from anyone.”

Negotiation — or a Battlefield of Narratives?

What is officially called a “nuclear negotiation” has, over the years, morphed into a battleground of competing narratives. On one side stands the United States, still viewing itself as both judge and enforcer. On the other is the Islamic Republic of Iran, which seeks to challenge the hegemonic world order established after World War II by asserting its “natural right to develop peaceful technology.”

 

What was once intended as a bridge to build “trust” has now become a test of resistance and independence. In a key statement, the Supreme Leader said: “I don’t believe these negotiations will lead to a result.”

This echoes his 2015 comment: “We will negotiate with the U.S., but we are not optimistic.” This is not rooted in cynicism, but in accumulated historical experience.

 

Why Is the West Afraid of Iran’s Enrichment?

The issue is not merely about centrifuges or a few kilograms of uranium. Enrichment in Iran — especially when achieved domestically and independently — symbolizes a break from dependency. As Henry Kissinger once said: “Whoever controls energy and security holds global politics in their grip.”

 

Accordingly, Western insistence on suspending or halting Iran’s enrichment is not just about preventing weaponization; it is a preemptive effort to block the emergence of an independent regional — and possibly global — power.

 

Trump - WANA

Does Iran Need Nuclear Energy? A Response to an American Fallacy

WANA (May 19) – “Iran has oil, so it doesn’t need nuclear energy.” This is a statement Donald Trump, the President of the United States, expressed emphatically in his interview with Fox News—not for the first time, and certainly not for the last. But what logic lies behind this seemingly simple sentence? Does possessing fossil […]

Read More...

 

A Realist Leader: Policy Informed by History

Contrary to media portrayals of Iran’s leader as purely ideological, his recent remarks reflect a deep analytical mindset rooted in real-world data. When he says, “The previous negotiations (during President Raisi’s term) were indirect, just like now — and just as fruitless,”
he’s referencing Iran’s diplomatic memory with precision.

 

From the 2003 negotiations to the 2015 JCPOA, Iran has consistently honored its commitments, while the other side — often due to shifting administrations — has reneged. Ayatollah Khamenei’s stance reflects not resentment, but a deeply strategic reading of past interactions.

 

Following the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA under Trump, Iran’s trust in Western promises eroded significantly. Today, any potential agreement hinges on guarantees the U.S. has so far been unwilling to provide.

 

Power Is Achieved Through Balance — Not Concessions

In international politics, concessions aren’t gained through diplomatic smiles, but through a balance of power. The U.S. has never agreed to a real deal unless confident that the other party’s strength is reduced. The experience of Arab states in the region — who despite billion-dollar arms deals remain vulnerable to small militant groups — proves that dependency doesn’t bring security.

 

Noam Chomsky once wrote: “In today’s global order, military power is not for defense — it is a mechanism for maintaining economic dominance.”
This is precisely where Iran’s perspective diverges from that of the West.

 

Some analysts argue that Iran’s nuclear issue is just one front in a much broader conflict — a struggle, as American geopolitical analyst Fareed Zakaria puts it, “between independent powers and the U.S.-led post-WWII order.” Iran, alongside Russia and China, stands as one of the few nations resisting the global power structure.

 

The U.S. effort to curb Iran’s missile program, regional influence, and even local economy is not only about regional security — it’s about containing a model of political independence that might inspire others.

What Comes Next?

The Supreme Leader clearly stated that, at the right time, he will explain to the nation “why the West is so sensitive about enrichment.” This may signal a broader move to bring the nuclear narrative into public discourse — raising national awareness about Iran’s technological, economic, and geopolitical rights.

 

Whether one supports Iran’s foreign policy or not, it is grounded in the belief that no country — not even the world’s foremost power — should be able to dictate the limits of another nation’s aspirations.

 

So now, the question is no longer whether negotiations will succeed. The real question is whether Iran, through its internal capabilities, will fully establish a system of “power without permission.”