TEHRAN— The New York Times took a swipe at Iran in an opinion piece published on August 12, accusing it of being a government that seeks "isolation."

The spiteful essay accurately reflects the United States' feelings toward Iran. We all know that the United States is furious with Iran, but why?

The reason is simple. Iran has not abandoned its revolutionary philosophy. Let us not forget that it was this revolutionary ideology that pushed the U.S. to enhance its efforts to topple the system and install one to power who would become its own puppet. Iran has refused to follow the world's big bully, the United States, under its revolutionary doctrine.

The fight against arrogance is one of the features of the Islamic revolution. Iran can come to a deal with the U.S. on two conditions: The U.S. must change its arrogant behavior, and Iran must reexamine its values. Neither of these two eventualities is seen to be likely. As a result, the United States is enraged by Iran's revolutionary nature. 

“Multiple U.S. administrations have attempted to coerce or persuade Iran to reconsider its revolutionary ethos, but have failed. The reason is simple: U.S.-Iran normalization could prove deeply destabilizing to a theocratic government whose organizing principle has been premised on fighting American imperialism,” the essay wrote. 

The first part of the preceding paragraph is correct. It's an honest admission from a reputable American media institution about the failures of past U.S. administrations. The second section, on the other hand, is pure fabrication.

The essay then goes on and on about how Iran values the "right amount of isolation," but it fails to see that the "global system," as it is referred to in the essay, is not restricted to the United States and a few European countries. On the contrary, Iran maintains extensive diplomatic contacts with countries all across the world, from Africa to Latin America.

Later, the essay goes to point out that one or two agreements between Tehran and Washington cannot solve a deep-rooted problem. Again, the statement is a sincere confession from the U.S. 

“A sound U.S. policy must reconcile the short-term objectives of countering Iran’s nuclear and regional ambitions without hampering the long-term goal of a representative Iranian government that is driven by the national interests of its people, rather than the revolutionary ideology of its rulers,” the essay said.

However, it says that, with the exception of George W. Bush, all U.S. presidents have attempted to repair ties with Iran over the past 43 years. The notion appears to be absolutely false, given that the U.S. attempted to enter Iran militarily through Tabas during Jimmy Carter's rule, but failed. Throughout the imposed war from 1980 to 1989, the United States continually supported Saddam Hussein by giving modern weaponry and giving satellite image of the Iranian forces in the battleground.

The subsequent U.S. administrations did not hesitate to apply harsh, coercive sanctions on Tehran in order to bring the country to its knees. They have consistently backed armed opposition groups like the MEK (Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organization), as well as separatist movements in Iranian provinces like Kurdistan, Khuzestan, and Azerbaijan.

They openly supported Mir Hossein Mousavi, a presidential candidate who later became an opposition leader whose true goal was to overthrow the system in 2009. They assassinated late General Qassem Soleimani, a valiant military leader who ended Daesh's (ISIS) power in Syria and Iraq and restricted its influence to occasional operations now and then, and let's not forget that if he had been alive, he would have completely destroyed Daesh. The U.S. also assisted its best friend, the Israeli regime, in assassinating Iran's top nuclear experts in broad daylight, and never criticized these crimes in any international institution. 

How can an imperialist regime with such terrible records is seeking to mend ties with Iran is a question that only the New York Times can answer. 

“Robert Cooper, a decorated European diplomat who negotiated with Iran, urges strategic patience. ‘Revolutionary powers don’t think the way others do,’ he told me. ‘They don’t want a different place in the world; they want a different world. It’s no good thinking you can change them, but a moment may come when they begin to doubt or to get over their revolution … then you can start something,’” the essay says. 

Two ideas come to mind once again. One is that the revolutionary powers do not live in a different world. Their perspective on the world is far broader than Cooper's.

Furthermore, the statement demonstrates the United States' level of displeasure and irritation with Iran, given that the underlying problem with Iran is that Tehran is a revolutionary government that does not follow the laws set by Washington.

Finally, the New York Times has brazenly targeted the Islamic Revolution's Leader. This is most likely owing to their proper understanding of the issue that the Leader is the captain of the ship, and he is a captain with a precise and deep awareness of the nature of the United States. He has thus far foiled the enemy's many plans and conspiracies, and it is not surprising that the U.S. is fiercely against him.