Critique of Foreign Minister's Statements

The conversation of Mr. Araghchi, the honorable Minister of Foreign Affairs,

and where, in an irresponsible remark,

he talks about a security loophole,

which now Mr. Javad, as if doing him a favor,

says, "Since you have a security background,"

"or have some information on this,"

justifying it a bit for Mr. Araghchi to say this.

But it can be discussed within this same category of irresponsible behavior,

that, for example, this issue of a security loophole,

the martyrdom of the martyred leader of the revolution,

on the ninth of Esfand, and under the title of a security loophole,

and that this security loophole still continues.

Now, well, maybe some... Mr. Araghchi, the Foreign Minister,

don't think it's good, maybe he, for example, in order to

create a new expertise for himself, brought this up.

He says, "Now that I couldn't win hearts in foreign policy,"

"and charm people in another discussion instead,"

maybe it can be placed in this category, I don't know,

but this is an irresponsible remark, after all.

Because in a way, it conveys a social and systemic message,

and actually, an error message to the inside,

an error message to the outside.

The previous one wasn't real, I was joking with him.

The reality is, it's as if he wants

to create a label for the criticisms directed at them.

That label, under the title of "these are faulty assessments"...

...that they make for us about...

securitizing criticism.

Yes, securitizing criticism. God, you really, really saved me.

Because this somehow, for example, creates such an interpretation,

creates such assumptions.

Then he comes up with, for example, an interpretation of a "security loophole" and such.

These are irresponsible subtleties.

Because when you confront other critics,

and you want to create something like this,

you want to fix one place, but you ruin a hundred others.

And I think it's a very big mistake.

It is a mistake politically,

and it is also against unity,

and also, later he cannot stand by it,

because it's a very... whenever...

the opposing side can also take it,

like, "Sir, this thing that the foreign minister did..."

This is a kind of security loophole.

Because when he sees that the Foreign Minister, who is in charge of foreign policy,

can talk about a security loophole,

and the other side says, "I can do it too,"

it becomes a very bad situation.

Then, if someone sees this,

hears it, and believes it,

that naturally, a Foreign Minister

must have his words, for example, so well-measured,

that he expects others to hear and believe them too,

then nothing remains of our republic.

Meaning, any idea of this must go forward,

any word must go forward, any policy must go forward,

I put this down to this issue.

This is the foundation of decision-making in our republic,

the foundation of political organization in our republic,

the foundation of the relationship of society

with the government in

the current political order,

completely disrupts it,

and from here, very strange errors

occurred. Now, besides this, some other points

were mentioned, which again

were strange errors.

In my opinion, overall, the interview for Mr.

Araqchi

was a very severe negative mark.

Mr. Araghchi did not have the expected votes,

and I think this, once again, mostly

allowed those who viewed Mr. Araghchi

in a negative light

to find in this negativity

or their negative stance

a basis for their victimhood.

This was contrary to the intentions;

Mr. Araghchi wanted to fix this

and to the candidates who

might criticize our process...

Perhaps, for example, the security loophole,

but in fact, it defeated the purpose

and incidentally, to the detriment of the policy itself,

or, for example, the stance of Mr.

Araghchi,

or even his character.