Emphasizing that words and positions are not decisive in the world of politics especially when these words are unsupported, Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh said: “The most effective things in politics are the changes that take place in the real world. These developments either confirm past positions or future positions are based on them. We have seen this many times especially in today’s relations between Iran and the US.

He explained: “However, Americans have formed these relationships based on psychological warfare, and their maximum-pressure policy is a psychological war policy. After a long time, the Americans were forced to make a deal with Iran. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was the outcome of an agreement whose main parties were Iran and the United States. We noticed how a new government took over and raised claims of maximum pressure under a psychological warfare policy called Maximum Pressure. Mr Trump and, of course, Secretary Pompeo claim they largely eliminate by political pressure what they call Iran’s concerns, and that its foundation was based on a psychological war.

Falahatpisheh added: “Several developments have taken place after that, the first and foremost of which is the destruction of a US drone by Iran, which showed that the US psychological warfare could not be transformed into a practical and operational war. This action destroyed the gist of the American psychological war. Moreover, many of America’s regional allies no longer follow Washington’s tension creating policies.

The international affairs analyst noted: “The next step was the seizure of the Iranian oil tanker. The Americans issued a call for the security of marine traffic and invited other countries to join. Only two actors accepted the invitation. One was the United Kingdom and the other was the Zionist regime. The Zionist regime is our enemy and we both have experienced a kind of confrontation in Syria, and naturally, it would not dare to send its ships close to the Iranian marine territories, because there would be no return for them. So the Zionist regime expressed only verbal support.

Falahatpisheh noted: “The United Kingdom by seizing the Iranian oil tanker in Gibraltar tried to get closer to the United States in practice. Both in regional and global issues and the case of Brexit the British needed the United States to support them so that the conditions for their separation from Europe would be aligned with utmost national interest and they would derive the utmost benefits from Europe.

Emphasizing that Iran took decisive action and pursued legal action against the UK, the MP continued: “Iran seized the British oil tanker after it entered the marine space of the Islamic Republic of Iran. On several occasions in the past, Iran had overlooked violations of Iranian waterway by passing ships but Tehran had turned a blind eye. But this time it did not overlook the violation by the British oil tanker and seized it.

Falahatpisheh said that at the time of the attack he believed that the British would eventually have to negotiate with Iran and quit (the US initiated) game. “I believe the game is not over yet. Until the damage done to Adrian oil tanker is determined and compensation paid, the British are responsible for what they have done. Iran is still losing over the British action and these damages should be pursued by the Islamic Republic of Iran in legal courts.”

“At that time, some people mistakenly said that the move was retaliatory and that the British oil tanker should be released but I do not believe so,” he said. The Iranian oil tanker has not reached a stage of stability yet and Iran’s interests have not been met. At the same time, it is not a matter of confrontation at all. The British have violated the law and Iranian courts should decide on the matter.

“When the Adrian oil tanker was released, the Americans announced that they have ordered it a seizure,” Falahatpisheh said. I announced at that time that Iran’s stance on the possible seizure of the Iranian oil tanker would be unchanged and within the UN Charter, the Iranians would ask for the right of retaliation; naturally, the Americans still would not dare to seize the Iranian oil tanker.”

He stressed that the most important strategic outcome of the Adrian Darya 1 oil tanker’s release was that when the Americans have set a limit for Iran, no country would challenge Tehran over Iran’s undisputed interests. Since the downing of their drone by Iran and the shooting down of the second drone in Yemen, the US has experienced yet another defeat, and when the Americans themselves have set limits, other countries would not enter Iran’s challenging space.

Falahatpisheh explained: “I believe actions such as the seizure of the British oil tanker and the downing of the US drone and the victory of the lawsuits in the case of the Iranian oil tanker, will in effect create some kind of immunity for Iran in the future. Meantime, all this evidence shows that Americans have to return to diplomacy and pay more attention to the ‘return for return’ policy, which is where Americans have to go back to where they were before the JCPOA.