Why negotiate with the US again
Amid Iran’s domestic and regional challenges, some believe that engaging in negotiations with the US could be a solution to the crises, while others view this approach as naive. In the current context, is negotiating with the US a viable way to address problems or merely a route to a historical dead end? Negotiating with the US has always been one of the most challenging issues in the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In this regard, opponents of negotiating with the United States have presented various reasons for their opposition. In the last one or two months, when the issue of negotiation has once again made headlines in the media, it has been met with various reactions from government opponents who have a dim view of the matter. Below, you will find the arguments of the opponents of negotiation and the perspective of a supporter of negotiation:
Kazem Sediqi, Tehran’s Friday Prayer Leader
Viewpoint: The US has lost its negotiating credentials and instead, it demands ransom.
Argument: The US demands ransom
Ahmad Alamolhoda, Mashhad’s Friday Prayer Leader
Viewpoint: The country’s problems cannot be solved through negotiation; negotiating with the enemy is a mistake, and if the enemy’s pressures are effective, they will continue and increase.
Argument: Increased pressure in case of negotiation
Mohammad Saeidi, Qom’s Friday Prayer Leader
Viewpoint: Those who are enthusiastic about negotiation with the US should know that the people and the Islamic Republic of Iran will never surrender to the US again.
Argument: Negotiation means captivity
Mohammad Baqer Laeini, Sari’s Friday Prayer Leader
Viewpoint: Negotiating with the US is meaningless because the US is the ‘Great Satan’, and negotiating with the devil yields no results. Negotiation is a tool that enemies use to stall us, and it is futile.
Argument: Futility of negotiation
Hossein Shariatmadari, Managing Director of Keyhan newspaper
Viewpoint: Those who these days, instead of trying to solve some of the country’s problems, prescribe negotiation with the US, are either “naive” and not very intelligent, or “ineffective” and hide their inability to solve problems under the cover of negotiation with the US, or, God forbid, are deceived or tempted to “collude with the enemy”... Negotiation with the US does not solve any problems. If you are willing to pay ransom, you will have to do it repeatedly, in all fundamental issues, and cross all your red lines.
Argument: Futility of negotiation and the necessity of crossing red lines
Mohammad Mehdi Hosseini Hamedani, Karaj’s Friday Prayer Leader
Viewpoint: Some people, driven by betrayal, negligence, or ignorance, discuss negotiation and surrender, instilling doubts in people’s minds. It is essential for the Revolutionary front to present an accurate narrative of the US’ crimes to prevent deviation and counter the ongoing efforts that seek to make people forget the injustices committed by the US.
Argument: Negotiation arises from betrayal or negligence
Let’s not create a dichotomy about dialogue
However, some individuals like Hossein Taeb, the former head of the Intelligence Organization of The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and current advisor to the Commander-in-Chief of the IRGC, believe that, “We must be careful not to move towards a dichotomy of compromise and negotiation because the US intends to impose its beliefs and goals on us in the negotiations. But if negotiations are to take place, we should get what is rightfully ours.”
Negotiating with the assassin of Gen. Soleimani?
Recently, Ali Abdolalizadeh, the president’s Special Representative for Sea-Oriented Economy, said, “We need a new foreign policy; the first principle in our sea-oriented development is to improve foreign relations with the world. I also said during the elections that we should negotiate with Mr. Trump. We cannot keep the country’s issues on hold, so we must speak honorably and defend our national interests. We have always been in favor of negotiation, and the entire ruling system has agreed to face-to-face negotiation.”
Abdolalizadeh’s remarks come despite the fact that after the direct negotiation between Iran and several countries, including the US, which led to the nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the lifting of sanctions, a large group described the negotiation as treacherous, using the keyword “We will not negotiate with the assassin of General Soleimani,” after the assassination of General Soleimani by Trump’s order. This is while in the past year, after the Operation Al-Aqsa Storm, in which the Israeli regime killed more than 45,000 Palestinians, the resistance movement Hamas has always kept the door open for negotiation with Israel to prevent the continuation of Israel’s crimes and the killing of the oppressed Palestinian people by securing the release of hostages.
Given the diverse perspectives and the significance of the issue, Mehdi Motaharnia, an international relations expert, shares his valuable insights:
Negotiation amid
distrust
Hossein Shariatmadari, managing director of Keyhan newspaper, advocates for confrontation with the US rather than addressing the country’s actual issues. If he has a plan to resolve these problems, why doesn’t he and his like-minded associates accept direct executive action? With the nation facing economic, social, and cultural challenges, why does it maintain a weak position in the global economy despite having substantial foreign exchange reserves in the past?
It is crucial to concentrate on the country’s internal issues. If these internal challenges are addressed, the country can better withstand external pressures. Despite the efficiency of the Islamic Republic that many officials highlight, the key question remains why Iran’s situation is still not better than in the past or compared to neighboring countries.
To address the country’s problems, corruption must be eliminated, and long-serving officials should step aside to allow young individuals with fresh ideas to enter the arena. Furthermore, the challenges of resolving the nation’s issues, even with financial resources like oil revenue and government rents, are not easily overcome.
Even in conditions of distrust, negotiating with the opposing side can be an effective tool, provided it is accompanied by self-confidence and appropriate executive mechanisms.
The issues at hand cannot be resolved solely through negotiation. Discussions serve as a means for clarifying and fostering mutual understanding of the matters involved. Negotiation does not imply acceptance of the other party; instead, its aim is to explore various facets of a complex issue, identify suitable solutions, and clarify existing challenges. From this viewpoint, negotiation acts as a tool for enhanced interaction and comprehension. Every negotiator across diverse fields—such as business, economics, politics, culture, and values—should strive to address intricate issues by prioritizing transparency and mutual understanding. This approach should be undertaken to gain greater leverage and resolve problems through the power of the negotiation table.
Talks, not the sole resolution
The concept of negotiation must be properly understood, as a correct understanding can help resolve the country’s issues. However, if its essence is not grasped, desired outcomes cannot be achieved.
‘Trust’ in foreign policy
In critiquing the views of those who oppose negotiation with the US, citing concerns about its untrustworthiness and past breaches of agreements, it is important to emphasize that successful negotiation—particularly in the realm of foreign policy—requires negotiators to possess self-confidence and a strong belief in their objectives. The negotiator should view themselves as powerful and, by clarifying the issues, act rationally and wisely to accurately predict the future of negotiations, using this insight to enhance the current situation and guide future paths.
Opponents of negotiation with the US often highlight its untrustworthiness due to its history of breaching agreements. This concern stems from past instances of the US violating agreements, particularly in international contexts. However, in the realm of politics and diplomacy, negotiation remains feasible even amidst distrust between parties. In such scenarios, rather than avoiding negotiation, legal and diplomatic tools should be employed to safeguard interests and avert potential issues.
Negotiation in a distrustful environment typically occurs through mechanisms such as agreements, memorandums of understanding, executive guarantees, and official registration in international organizations. Within these frameworks, even when parties lack trust, agreements can be forged that are acceptable to both sides.
In diplomacy and foreign policy, “trust” should not be expected to be absolute; instead, it should be cultivated through negotiations, guarantees, and executive mechanisms. Negotiators must navigate this space with rationality and transparency to mitigate problems and misunderstandings. This entails creating conditions where both sides can reasonably arrive at an agreement and utilize executive mechanisms to uphold the credibility of agreements. If negotiators are not well-versed in such concepts and principles, negotiations may falter, and desired outcomes may remain unattained.
Challenges of military confrontation
Opponents of negotiation with the US often believe that the US, driven by its fear of military confrontation with Iran, emphasizes negotiation as a means to reduce tensions and secure greater advantages. They argue that the US, through its political and propaganda efforts in Iran, aims to draw Iran into negotiations to avert military conflict.
If Iran genuinely seeks to confront the US, there are opportunities available. Iran can leverage its current positions to bolster resistance groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas, and other forces in Syria.
If the US is indeed fearful of military confrontation with Iran, why doesn’t Iran capitalize on this fear by taking military actions, such as closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking US aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf? If those who hold such views believe in their validity, why don’t they pursue these issues practically if they are capable of such actions?
If the US turns to negotiation to avoid war, Iran should strategically take advantage of this situation because negotiation is less costly for the US than war.
The fate of negotiation and foreign policy decisions must be clarified. Iran should identify its priorities and make definitive choices regarding how to confront external threats, utilizing various tools such as diplomacy or military capabilities. There is little time left for reflection in this matter, and a practical, effective path to resolve the country’s political and security issues should be determined promptly.
But are Russia, China, UK, and Saudi Arabia trustworthy?
If the US is not a trustworthy negotiating party, can other countries like Russia, China, Britain, or Saudi Arabia be considered trustworthy? Generally, no country can be entirely trustworthy, and negotiators must recognize that trust is a relative concept.
Negotiation is founded on the premise that even in a climate of distrust, discussions can occur; however, in such circumstances, agreements and executive guarantees are typically necessary, and these agreements are documented in international organizations to ensure compliance with commitments. Conversely, when negotiations occur in an atmosphere of complete trust, the processes are carried out more transparently and swiftly, without the need for additional complexities. This underscores the significance of ‘trust’ in negotiations, highlighting that trust must be present on both sides for negotiations to succeed.
This criticism applies to certain individuals involved in decision-making and policymaking who lack a proper and comprehensive understanding of fundamental political concepts.
If these individuals lack familiarity with fundamental political concepts, such as negotiation and trust, the results of decisions and negotiations will not achieve the desired outcome. Under these circumstances, politicians and decision-makers may encounter political and social challenges, potentially resulting in serious issues for the country. Negotiation, as a crucial instrument in foreign policy, necessitates a deeper understanding and accurate recognition of basic political concepts; otherwise, negotiations and decisions will not yield the desired results.
The article was provided by Persian service of the Islamic News Agency (IRNA).