Explain the strategies of neutralization and lifting of sanctions by Rabiee

The text of this note is as follows:
In his recent speech, the Supreme Leader of the Revolution combined the two strategies of “neutralizing sanctions” and “lifting sanctions” and, while emphasizing the correct and strategic priority of neutralizing sanctions, said: “Of course, I do not say that we should not seek to lift sanctions; “Why, really, if we can lift the sanctions, we should not delay for an hour.”

“There are some people who want to delay the end of the sanctions. We will not give in to this for a minute or an hour and we will stand against them. The sanctions must be broken,” the president had previously told a news conference.

The Supreme Leader and the President’s emphasis on not wasting minutes and minutes on lifting sanctions is no different from the priority they have given to “neutralizing sanctions.” In both cases we see a new understanding of time and the present “minute and hour” which shows that in the compression of the time capsule of the coming days and a maximum of one or two months to come, we do not encounter normal calendar time.

I mentioned earlier in a note (Against Social Resistance, October 17, 1999) that a political movement is based on a strategy to reduce the effects of sanctions, but it is necessary to have a three-pillar strategy, which includes reversing sanctions, lifting sanctions. Reducing the effects of sanctions (neutralizing sanctions) and increasing socio-economic resilience is to build and pursue.

This three-pronged strategy has requirements in the field of economic, social and foreign actions, methods and policies. To thwart foreign counter-terrorism efforts, we need to keep in mind that we need to coordinate and strike a balance between “sanctions-breaking hours” and “sanctions-neutralizing hours.” Of course, these two clocks do not have the same speed and pace. Undoubtedly, what we have at our disposal, and without the intervention of any external variable, can be pursued quickly, is the elimination of the effects of sanctions by involving society, and we must proceed intelligently in the process of breaking sanctions. Foreign opponents of sanctions are trying to disrupt the sanctions. Experts agree that Borjam’s foreign enemies will make every effort not to repeat Borjam’s experience and will not tolerate any Borjam or sanctions breach. A constructive and peaceful neighborhood policy based on the strengthening of legitimate mutual interests, and the effort to build stronger regions, nullifies such efforts. Neutralization of sanctions and orientation towards a leap in production requires a safe regional environment and the acquisition of a regional market that is open to Iranian goods and at the same time boosts economic and cultural relations with neighbors. It is at this point that we are witnessing Zionist divisiveness that is relentlessly trying in two different ways to create divisions and deepen differences and turn rivalries into enemies. The lifting of US sanctions also means that we do not allow outside parties to build hostile barriers and boundaries between us and our neighbors. Neutralization of sanctions in this sense is the neutralization of those mines that the United States has planted in the exchange of Iran and its neighbors, and the neutralization of those mines that have been planted in the world financial system in the form of financial restrictions. These cases show that the neutralization of sanctions and its lifting together require coordination between the various branches of government and overcoming the conflicts that have filled the field of domestic politics today.

Domestic policy requirements must be met in both economic and social dimensions. I believe that in this era, our economic development strategies should be more oriented towards social economy. Fortunately, in the second quarter of 1999, we saw a way out of the recession. Continuing this requires economic policies that are supported by all forces. Economic growth can be sustained by eliminating conflicting and neutralizing approaches to important issues such as Article 44 and involving people in the economy and investment security and supporting economic managers at the center of economic warfare and reducing current spending by all.

Social economy means paying attention to economic development policies that somehow connect with people’s daily lives by creating the development infrastructure that has emerged over the years and have a tangible effect on improving their lives.
I consider increasing social capital and public trust more important than foreign policy and appropriate economic programs. Today we are witnessing conflicts that have no significant effect other than reducing social capital. If capital feels that everyone is sympathetically seeking to strengthen the programs they have voted for, social capital can be relied upon. Overcoming the sanctions crisis requires large social capital.

Everyone should consider the government in the general sense as having the right against the oppressors and sanctions and come to its aid. As I have written many times, the issue of being able to be at the top and the coordination of the above will play an irreplaceable role in society’s belief. Pursuing policies based on social tolerance and protecting the privacy of the people and trying to create and spread common values ​​and create a vibrant, vibrant and hopeful society can fulfill that social obligation.

Now that the inauguration of the leadership has completed its argument, we must continue the social and political dialogue of the society from today, not on the useless debate over the bipolarity of lifting the sanctions and neutralizing the sanctions, but with the consensus on the solidarity of these two strategies and their alignment. And join the government in achieving and achieving both of these goals together.

The guidelines of the leadership, which have always been the guide of the government’s action, are best fulfilled when everyone calls themselves their target and, without interpreting the vote, as clearly as they are, becomes the basis of policy-making. I think the three-pronged strategy can be a good umbrella for domestic and foreign policy to neutralize and simultaneously lift sanctions.