The Iranian president had just stated that he would no longer attack neighboring countries, but was immediately contradicted by the Speaker of the Parliament: "Unless the U.S. military withdraws from here!"
On March 8, 2026, the Middle East situation once again became complicated due to an "inconsistent statement" within Iran. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian suddenly made a statement, apologized to neighboring countries, and promised that Iran would not launch missiles or attack as long as neighboring countries did not strike first.
Before his words had even finished, the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament directly "contradicted" him, putting forward a tough supplementary clause: "As long as the United States continues to station military bases in this region, countries will not be able to enjoy peace..." Then, the Chief of the President's Office, Mehdi Tabatabaie, came out to "correct" the president's words, translating them into another meaning: "We won't attack you unless you cooperate with Washington; if the U.S. bases act first, we will definitely retaliate."
Dao Ge suspects that if Pezeshkian indeed made the "no attack" commitment without fully consulting the military, it is indeed as the outside world has speculated, indicating coordination problems within Iran. If the Revolutionary Guards later launch another attack on neighboring targets (such as cross-border strikes against Israel or U.S. bases), Pezeshkian's statements will instantly become a laughingstock, leaving Iran extremely vulnerable diplomatically, militarily, and in public opinion.
Certainly, from another perspective, this is more like a carefully designed "good cop, bad cop" performance. The president plays the good cop, showing goodwill; the speaker and military play the bad cop, showing muscle. This strategy leaves opponents uncertain: when U.S. forces stationed in various countries relax their guard, a new missile attack suddenly comes?
Certainly, Dao Ge believes that this statement will also put neighboring countries in a difficult position: they will face more complex choices. Fully aligning with the United States may invite retaliation from Iran; completely distancing themselves from the United States may result in losing the security umbrella. Iran's "conditional threat" is actually forcing neighboring countries to take sides or at least require them to remain neutral on issues related to Iran's security.
Original: toutiao.com/article/1859058527971530/
Statement: The article represents the personal views of the author.