Tuesday, February 11, 2025
HomeIran News NowLatest News on Iranian TerrorismIran News: State Media Blames FM Araghchi for Regime’s Diplomatic Chaos, Exposes...

Iran News: State Media Blames FM Araghchi for Regime’s Diplomatic Chaos, Exposes Systemic Deception

Iranian regime’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi at a restaurant in Damascus on December 2, 2024—an incident widely mocked by Iranians as “The Last Diner”

Ham Mihan, a state-affiliated newspaper linked to Iran’s revisionist faction branding itself as “reformist,” has sharply criticized Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, highlighting not just his failures but also the broader instability within the regime’s foreign policy. The piece, penned by Editor-in-Chief Mohammad-Javad Ruh, reveals a dysfunctional diplomatic apparatus and Tehran’s contradictory approach to negotiations.

The article that was published today, February 2, emphasizes that Araghchi’s appointment was effectively sealed before Pezeshkian’s government took shape. “Even before the transition team and government committees were fully formed, Araghchi’s name had already been confirmed as the Foreign Minister.” The editorial further states that Araghchi’s previous roles—including his tenure in the IRGC and ties to extremist factions like Motalefeh—made him an ideal candidate who could balance regime interests while engaging with the West.

Despite this, Ham Mihan notes that the minister’s standing has rapidly diminished: “With six months of the fourteenth government now behind us, Araghchi’s political backing is fading.” This decline, the editorial suggests, stems from his failure to maintain the delicate balance between the regime’s public belligerent stance and its private diplomatic maneuvers.

The newspaper details how Tehran’s diplomatic authority is increasingly fragmented. “Figures like Ali Shamkhani, despite holding no formal position, still present themselves as key figures in the nuclear file, while the Foreign Ministry and government remain silent.” The editorial also criticizes Kharrazi’s interventions, arguing that “although these statements appear coordinated, they indicate a growing competition, with the Strategic Council for Foreign Relations overstepping its advisory role.”

The lack of coordination is, according to Ham Mihan, a stark contrast to Rouhani’s administration, where negotiations were centralized under the Foreign Ministry. The editorial warns that “previous experiences of unofficial and secret negotiations have demonstrated that they yield no benefits for the country and only deepen internal divisions—an example of this was the McFarlane affair.”

The piece further exposes Tehran’s strategic duplicity, particularly in its approach to the United States. It criticizes Araghchi’s comments to Al Jazeera, where he described the release of Iran’s frozen funds as a “confidence-building measure” by Washington. Ham Mihan slams this as a major diplomatic blunder: “If even a basic understanding of Trump’s mindset had been considered, any statement should have been made—except for requesting demands and funds.”

This contradiction is central to the regime’s approach: publicly denouncing the West while privately seeking engagement. The editorial notes that “even officials like Ali Abdolalizadeh, in contrast to Araghchi, recognize the importance of framing negotiations in terms of investment opportunities rather than direct demands.”

The article also scrutinizes Araghchi’s diplomatic missteps, particularly his recent trips to conflict zones. “His visit to Beirut, at the height of Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon, and worse, his trip to Damascus just days before Bashar al-Assad’s downfall, left a damaging impact on his record.” The editorial argues that Araghchi’s presence in these regions did nothing to project Iranian strength, but rather exposed its declining influence: “Lebanese officials like Nabih Berri responded with an unusually critical tone, and Syria’s new rulers, openly hostile to Iran, saw Araghchi’s last-minute visit as nothing but desperation.”

While the newspaper ostensibly critiques Araghchi, the deeper message is that the entire diplomatic apparatus is crumbling. Khamenei’s strategy—appointing Araghchi to signal openness to the West while continuing anti-Western rhetoric domestically—has not only failed but has also exposed the regime’s weaknesses. Tehran hopes to stall negotiations until a major international crisis—such as the ongoing conflicts in Gaza or Ukraine—distracts global powers. This pattern mirrors Iran’s past tactics of prolonging diplomatic engagements while secretly advancing its nuclear program and regional ambitions.

With competing factions sending conflicting messages and Tehran struggling to maintain credibility, Ham Mihan’s assessment of Araghchi is, in reality, an indictment of the entire regime’s foreign policy. The contradictions, diplomatic failures, and lack of coordination indicate that Khamenei is not seeking a genuine resolution but rather playing for time, waiting for external events to shift the geopolitical landscape in his favor.