Why did the Iranian president express regret to neighboring countries

International Desk Report:

Many were surprised when Iran’s interim president, Masoud Pezeshkian, apologized to the countries Tehran has attacked on Saturday.

It is rare for a country to apologize to another, especially during an ongoing conflict, and every word is significant. Leaders usually “apologize” or avoid responsibility for an incident.

But now Pezeshkian has directly admitted responsibility for Iran’s neighbors becoming targets, saying that Iran will not attack them “unless they attack first.”

“I think it is necessary to apologize to the neighboring countries that were attacked. We have no intention of attacking neighboring countries.”

The first question that arises from this is – was this a genuine ‘condolence’, and why now? One possibility is that Iran’s interim leadership is trying to contain a growing regional crisis.

Several countries in the region have been embroiled in conflict since the US and Israeli attacks on Saturday, February 28.

Pezeshkian said the attacks were carried out ‘intentionally’ after the initial strikes killed several senior Iranian commanders and disrupted the central command structure.

By expressing regret, Pezeshkian may be sending a message that Tehran does not want to spread war to the regional arena.

However, this message is also an implicit acknowledgement of a political reality that although some neighboring countries have allowed US forces to operate from bases on their territory, if Iran targets them, they will further isolate themselves. will be at risk.

But it is not clear whether an apology or apology will ultimately become policy.

Reports from the region suggest that attacks linked to Iran or its forces have not stopped. Qatar and the United Arab Emirates both said on Saturday that they had intercepted missiles fired at them.

If such attacks continue, it will raise deep questions about the control of Iran’s fractured leadership structure.

Since the first wave of attacks killed key figures, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, an interim leadership council is now taking over decision-making.

On the surface, this structure may seem to give individuals like Pezeshkian more power or influence than they had in the previous system, which was run by a supreme leader.

But in reality, the extent to which the interim government has control over powerful military and security institutions like the Revolutionary Guard is still uncertain.

If Iran-related attacks in neighboring countries continue after the president’s Saturday remarks, it would mean either a breakdown in relations with neighbors or a leadership conflict with groups that seek to reduce the conflict.

Hardline elements within Iran’s security establishment have long argued that this regional pressure has served as Iran’s strongest defense against U.S. and Israeli military power.

The president’s remarks have also been met with mixed reactions within the country. Some hardline elements within Iran have already criticized Pezeshkian’s remarks as weak.

The current political moment in Iran is unusual, as several hardline figures in the country’s top leadership have been killed, but many lower-ranking officials and commanders remain deeply skeptical of any message of conciliation.

They say that expressing regret to neighboring governments risks being seen as a sign of surrender at a time of national crisis.

Outside Iran, the reaction to Pezeshkian’s remarks has been very different. US President Donald Trump claimed on Truth Social that Iran had “apologized and surrendered” to its neighbors.

He argued that the move was proof that US and Israeli military pressure was working.

The language of his remarks reflects how Washington interprets Tehran’s message. Mr. Trump has repeatedly insisted that the only acceptable outcome of the war is Iran’s “complete surrender.”

His claim naturally sparked a diplomatic row.

Historically, no country has typically surrendered unconditionally as a result of airstrikes alone, no matter how intense the bombing.

Without ground forces, such an outcome is extremely difficult to achieve.

Interpreting Pjeshkian’s apology as a form of surrender could therefore serve as a political bridge for the United States – meaning Washington can claim its own lead in the war without formally abandoning Iran’s demand for surrender.

But for Pjeshkian and Iran’s interim leadership, the calculus may be different.

A ceasefire now, before a new permanent leader is elected, could provide some stability.

If Iran’s next supreme leader is a hardline cleric, the prospects for diplomacy would be even more limited.

This possibility raises another strategic question – is Pjeshkian trying to portray himself as a liberal leader, the kind of leader Western governments would prefer to work with?

In his remarks, he has attempted to strike a balance between rigidity and liberality, rejecting surrender while signaling a more restrained response to neighboring states.

Meanwhile, a battle over Iran’s future leadership has already begun.

Various political and religious figures, as well as many commanders of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and security forces, are seeing the current crisis as an opportunity to strengthen their positions.

Some are calling on the Assembly of Experts to take swift action to elect a new leader.

Now, if Pjeshkian cannot bring stability quickly, or fails to establish control over the armed forces, his rivals may argue that they need to elect a tougher leader.

But the test of competence, as it is now, is outside Iran’s borders.

So far, some of Iran’s neighbors have reacted cautiously, or have remained silent, perhaps waiting to see if the apology leads to real change.

Meanwhile, Israel, which sees the war as a rare opportunity to weaken Iran’s long-term threat, does not see Pjeshkian’s statement as a genuine step towards de-escalation.

As a result, it is conceivable that the ambiguity of Pjeshkian’s statement may be intentional.

And his apology opens up a number of interpretations – an attempt to defuse regional tensions, or a strategic move to buy some time for Iran’s interim leadership to be elected, or the beginning of a political restructuring within Tehran.

Or perhaps a combination of all three possibilities is the gist of Pjeshkian’s statement.