Enemy undeniably seeking to exploit Iran’s internal affairs
The articulation of contradictory statements and the concomitant transmission of signals of threat and willingness to advance diplomacy have become a consistent modus operandi of the United States administration under Donald Trump. Days ago, the United States president claimed he had received a negotiation request, and the White House spokesperson, in complementing these remarks, had asserted Trump’s proclivity for diplomacy with Iran. However, after less than 24 hours, with a palpable pivot, he abruptly demanded the continuation of presence in the streets and declared assistance is en route. The US president also claimed that, in support of individuals on the streets, he canceled his meeting with Iranian officials. The American president, in response to a question by CBS regarding the objective of his policy toward Tehran, stated, “My ultimate goal in Iran is victory, I love to win!.” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, in remarks delivered on January 12, before an assembly of ambassadors and heads of foreign missions resident in Tehran, highlighted, “We do not desire war but possess complete preparedness for war and are even more prepared than the previous 12-day war. The optimal method to prevent war is preparedness for war so that adversaries do not miscalculate. We are also prepared for negotiation, but fair, honorable negotiation, from a position of equality and with respect and based on mutual interests. Negotiation that is serious and genuine, not ordering and dictation, which is the ethic of some countries.” Abdolreza Faraji-Rad, a former Iranian diplomat and a professor of geopolitics, shared his assessment of recent developments and also contradictory statements from United States officials in a text, translated below.
By Abdolreza Faraji-Rad
Former diplomat and international affairs expert
That which has transpired these days inside Iran possesses economic roots. Sanctions have caused the government’s hands to be tied, foreign currency is lacking, the government has also announced it cannot order agricultural and pharmaceutical commodities in a timely manner, and consumer goods have experienced excessive price increases. This very matter also precipitated the emergence of dissatisfaction among the populace.
Perhaps it was necessary to address foreign policy issues much sooner and initiate dialogues. Certainly, it is true that Mr. Trump articulates coercion, and that this coercion applies to all countries of the world including America’s allies, but the reality is that in confrontation with a coercive entity, although steadfastness is necessary, diplomacy and negotiation also must not be entirely discarded.
Iran possesses adversaries and rivals, and these actors obstruct potential negotiations between Tehran and Washington, at the forefront of which is Israel; also, some countries in our region do not welcome a reduction of tension between Iran and the United States and an improvement of Iran’s economic situation and its becoming more powerful. Therefore, that which we heard recently and prior to Trump’s new clamor regarding Iran’s preparedness for negotiation and Donald Trump’s statements that negotiations might commence, is a notable, albeit cautious, development. The reality is, if we had resolved these economic problems prior to this, none of the occurrences of the last several days would have transpired.
Until sanctions are removed, we will not witness a transformation in the economy. Recently, we also witnessed Trump declare that for every commercial partner of Iran, a 25% tariff will be imposed. This is a perilous issue that makes our task of continuing commercial dealings more difficult. I believe we must, in negotiations, be able to achieve a result. Yes, we must preserve our missile industry and also possess an acceptable level of enrichment, which is among the necessities, but when we enter negotiation, we will observe what apertures exist through which to engage in quid pro quo. We have thus far been unable to optimally utilize those instruments that negotiation places in our hands.
For them to say, “We only accept this outcome and nothing else,” and for us to merely repeat the same thing, the result that accrues for us is nothing except economic problems. I hope, based on what we heard in the news, that the two sides enter serious negotiations, and America also refrains from repeating that which occurred in the previous round of negotiations. I believe that the United States also does not desire war with Iran because Iran is different from Venezuela, and our region possesses its own particular conditions. Until our foreign policy moves forward and proceeds on the path of removing sanctions, the economic pressure on the people also prepares the conditions for foreign exploitation.
Trump administration prefers diplomacy with Iran
That the adversary, comprising the Zionist regime and the United States, utilizes Iran’s internal milieu, is not a subject regarding which any doubt or skepticism exists. Until two months ago, officials of the Zionist regime daily threatened to initiate a new round of aggressions against Iran, but abruptly, we witnessed that the Israeli prime minister, in a message to the Russian president, declared that they do not seek tension with Iran.
The reason is that they had a plan and executed this plan and propagated via foreign media, and this matter coincided with the commencement of a new wave of price increases inside Iran, which is another undeniable reality. This very matter also caused the American president to resort to threatening rhetoric, but this is while the White House spokesperson declares that Washington, despite its capability in terms of power, prefers diplomacy. Concurrently, I believe confidential negotiations can prepare the ground for a quid pro quo. Trump, on the threshold of Senate elections, seeks an achievement and is simultaneously avoiding entry into a new conflict in the Middle East so as not to lose his supporters.
The article first appeared in Persian on IRNA.