Why US cannot be trusted: Experts
The Leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolution has set the tone for everyone regarding the country’s foreign policy, especially on the approach towards the Donald Trump administration in the US. Drawing on historical experience, the Leader clearly and explicitly stated that negotiating with such a government (the US and the Trump administration) is “unwise, unintelligent, and dishonorable” and that we should not negotiate with them.
We have put the negotiation to the test both shortly after the Islamic Revolution and later as part of reaching the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). In all these tests, the US government, regardless of who was the president from which party, has failed to build trust or create goodwill. It is only natural that we cannot engage in dignified negotiations with a government that has not taken a single step, spoken a single word, or taken a single action to build trust. The strategy outlined by the Leader, which relies on mustering internal strength and simultaneously dismissing negotiations with the US, is something that reason, history, and experience confirm so far.
However, what is not confirmed by reason is turning this foreign policy issue into a domestic policy issue. Some radical political movements, perhaps from both sides of the spectrum, are trying to turn this mistrust and the unnegotiable nature of the US government into a tool to pressure the government of Masoud Pezeshkian.
Such an approach can complete the puzzle of Donald Trump’s maximum pressure. The coming days will show who inside Iran will do so and who will move toward strengthening the government and avoiding polarization around Trump.
Why negotiating with US not honorable
By Abbas
Salimi Namin
Political expert
The Leader’s statement that negotiating with the US is not honorable under current circumstances is completely correct because the way Americans behave is that they want to impose their desired state on Iran. In other words, the Americans want to achieve their own desires and excessive demands through negotiations. Therefore, when they cannot or do not want to achieve their desired outcome through military means, they threaten other countries, including Iran, and raise the issue of negotiations in a threatening atmosphere.
It is clear that the Americans are not genuinely seeking constructive negotiations, but rather want to pursue their goals in a negotiation-based atmosphere of threats. For this reason, I believe it is not honorable to start negotiations in an atmosphere of threats, especially since they were the ones who initially halted the negotiations and backed out. The Americans were the ones who violated the JCPOA, while the Europeans, along with China and Russia, were more or less honoring the agreement. This is while the Americans, in the Obama administration, had already accepted and signed the JCPOA.
In my opinion, Iran’s taking the lead in negotiations without the US changing its behavior is not desirable. Therefore, it is the Americans who must try to change their behavior, and only then can Iran move towards negotiations. However, under any circumstances other than a change in US behavior, negotiations are not honorable for Iran.
Thought-provoking facts about dealing with US
By Jalil Rahimi Jahanabadi
Iranian lawmaker
To reduce tensions with the West, specifically the US, the Islamic Republic of Iran has taken important steps regarding its nuclear program and in the negotiations that led to the JCPOA. After the negotiations, it was, again, Iran that fulfilled a significant part of its commitments, including reducing the volume and percentage of uranium enrichment, the number and type of centrifuges, and its commitments to the Additional Protocol.
However, the US government, after tense, prolonged negotiations, not only failed to meet its commitments but also began a process of confrontation, tension, and bad faith. The assassination of Martyr Soleimani, the sabotage of the nuclear facilities by the Zionist regime with US support, and extensive sanctions all occurred after that. Therefore, it is natural for Iran to consider the bitter memory of the past whenever it thinks about negotiating with the US.
On the other hand, considering the bitter events of the past year in the region, the West and the Americans think that Iran is in a weak position. With this notion in mind, they are not seeking to negotiate with Iran on an equal footing and may even want to expand Iran’s commitments to other issues. Considering such facts, the current situation is not suitable for negotiating with the US and signaling an atmosphere conducive to negotiation to Western parties. This is because they will evaluate such an approach, considering all the bad faith and pressure, as Iran being in a weak position.
The Leader’s statement that negotiating with the US under current circumstances is not wise or honorable is based on the US’s history of bad faith and actions taken against Iran. It is a reminder of the fact that if we enter into negotiations with the US government now, there is no guarantee that they will fulfill their commitments. This is while fulfilling commitments is one of the essential rules and foundations of all commitments in the framework of international law.
It is worth noting how other international developments that included the US turned out. Historical experience shows that accepting US conditions has had undesirable consequences for countries. These historical facts confirm the views of the Leader. Any country that has dealt with Westerners from a position of weakness has seen its security and territorial integrity threatened and has been harmed. These are facts that make an emphasis on resistance logical.
Negotiating under threats not an honor
By Hamidreza Taraghi
Member of Islamic Coalition Party
In my opinion, there are several reasons why negotiating with the US is not honorable at present. One of them is the creation of a threatening atmosphere by the US against Iran. The Americans first threaten, then impose sanctions, and finally come to the negotiating table. Naturally, if a country is seeking negotiations and resolving issues, its approach and language towards negotiations should be peaceful, not threatening. However, the US has not only imposed sanctions on Iran but also on countries that buy Iranian oil. Therefore, if we choose to move towards negotiations in these circumstances, it means we want to force the other side to talk, which is more humiliating than honorable.
The second reason for not accepting negotiations is Iran’s position in the international arena, which is a dignified one. If a country with a dignified position like Iran is spoken to in a threatening and intimidating tone, it will not receive a response other than the recent statements of the Leader.
The third reason for negotiations with the US government not being honorable or wise is the experience of the past behavior of this country. The US has shown that it is not committed to its international contracts and agreements and will withdraw from them if they are not in its interest. Therefore, we are not in a position to negotiate with the US on an equal footing, and this makes negotiations with the US null and void.
Polarization over negotiations condemnable
By Gholam-Ali Dehghan
Member of Moderation
and Development Party
Finally, after days of debate and conflict over negotiations with the US among supporters and opponents, the Leader clarified the establishment’s position. Over the past few months, it was expected that Donald Trump would reconsider his approach and show signs of goodwill after the unsuccessful experience of maximum pressure during his first term in office, which did not lead to Iran’s surrender. Although he did so in words, in practice, by returning to the strategy of maximum pressure, he and the US ruling apparatus evidently have not changed their strategies towards Iran, especially since Trump made this decision public after meeting with Netanyahu.
In any case, Trump ignored the proverb “actions speak louder than words” and did what he wanted. He could have acted otherwise and canceled part of his executive order to show a green light, but he did not. As the saying goes, “He came out swinging,” although it was just for sanctions, not necessarily for military measures.
In any case, the Americans, disregarding the historical mistrust of Iranians towards them, still did not show goodwill in practice to perhaps crack open the door for resolving the problems between the two countries. Therefore, as Seyyed Mohammad Khatami said, “The wall of mistrust between the two countries remains high,” and it was the US that removed the item of negotiations and resolving issues from the agenda, not Iran.
Therefore, the fact that the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran has been set on this path is the result of US policy.
The government of Masoud Pezeshkian will certainly follow the honorable path and will not take an unwise approach. Internal polarization over the issue of the US and negotiations, non-negotiations, and possibly challenging the government of Pezeshkian is an American-style polarization that is condemnable for anyone from any faction to engag