ABBAS Araghchi was in Pakistan on Friday night—right at the moment when some of our intellectuals were advising Iran to “cool down” and for that purpose, take a sip of water. So, was it really our wise men’s pressure that made Abbas Araghchi rush to Pakistan?
Well, there is no harm in making such a claim. The world of possibilities is vast. And if a possibility brings us comfort, why not believe in it? Maybe Iran did calm down after our advice. But if we really want to understand the full picture, we should also ask: why was Iran not willing to calm down in the first place? That question might remove some misunderstandings—and perhaps lift the veils that have been placed over reality, knowingly or unknowingly.
Our concern is valid—completely valid—that our focus should be one thing only: the survival, security and well-being of the Iranian people. If any strategy or anger blocks that path, it should be rejected. But before we conclude, we must ask: is Iran really acting out of uncontrolled anger, or is the situation something else?
Some facts cannot be denied. Iran’s top leadership, including the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and its military command structure were targeted. Iran’s defense and civilian infrastructure was heavily damaged. The destruction was widespread. A few days ago, Donald Trump himself said that even if the war ended today, it could take Iran 20–25 years to rebuild.
From this point of view, one could argue that Iran should rush toward an agreement—to save whatever it still has, especially its oil resources. That sounds reasonable. But here is the other side of the picture: this fear has taken hold of us because we accepted Donald Trump’s narrative without question—a man known for changing his stance repeatedly, sometimes within the same breath.
There is no harm in listening to him. But fairness demands something simple: if a matter involves two sides, at least hear the other side as well. If you think Iran is angry, then at least try to understand why. If a country sees its leadership wiped out and its cities reduced to ruins, it has every right to feel anger. And if it seeks retaliation, that too has its logic. But again—the same question: is Iran really acting out of anger?
Now look at the other side. Just as Iran’s losses are real, it is equally undeniable that Iran has managed to break through what was considered Israel’s “impenetrable” defense. Iran adopted a remarkable strategy. A BBC investigative report revealed that Iran relied on low-cost drones—sending them in swarms like bees. In trying to counter them, the enemy ended up exhausting a large portion of its own arsenal.
The same report noted that replenishing those weapons could take years. Then comes the Strait of Hormuz. By threatening or controlling it, Iran effectively held the enemy’s lifeline. This doesn’t isolate Iran—it disrupts global energy supply. Oil and gas flows are affected and that creates pressure on the United States and its allies. And then there is American domestic politics—which is already signaling trouble for Trump’s political camp.
These are the reasons why Donald Trump now appears eager for a deal. So, let me ask you plainly: if your enemy is caught in your grip, would you let them go? The reality is this: at this moment, Iran has its thumb on the enemy’s lifeline. This is a rare moment in history. And in such a moment, by advising Iran to “calm down,” we are essentially telling it to ignore a hard-earned advantage and settle under pressure. So the question is simple: are we really Iran’s friends—or something else?
—This writer is former advisor to the President of Pakistan, author & mass media theorist.
(farooq.adilbhuta@gmail,com)
