Tehran – In a memo, Kayhan addressed the duality of Western-leaning publications’ behavior regarding the visit of the Foreign Minister to Tehran in Russia.
It writes: Western publications have long argued that America has been friends with Iran, Russia is an enemy, and that it is Russia that the JCPOA has become a victim at the expense of Iran’s interests. But suddenly they argued that the Russian foreign minister came as a mediator on behalf of the United States, and that Russia should welcome mediation. This was when our country’s Foreign Minister Araguchi rejected both Russian mediation and the message by Lavrov. Araguchi has once again ruled out negotiations due to violations of American promises, bullying, threats and pressure. Imagine these publications that all foreign officials visiting Iran intend to mediate Iran and the US
Siasat-e-Rooz: Foreground of dialogue
Siasat-e-Rooz devotes his editor to new consultations with the European troika, and the important point to be said about negotiations is that the principles of negotiation are not based on trust, but are honest, and we cannot negotiate too demanding and threatening. For the past few months, the West has been exaggerating the snapback mechanism in October before the expiration of the JCPOA. They cannot talk about diplomacy or threaten to implement a snapback mechanism (which would return all UN Security Council resolutions against Iran). The West should pay attention to the fact that Iran will not come to the negotiation table due to threats and sanctions. The West will therefore suffer the same fate as the United States by asserting pressure and negotiation policies. From an Iranian perspective, negotiating with the United States is irrational, ignorant and dishonorable. To build trust, Europe must first prove its political and economic independence. In this regard, announcing the official condemnation of the US maximum pressure program against Iran and taking steps to lift some of Iran’s economic sanctions could be a preliminary step towards building trust.
Ham Mihan: Maximum pressure doesn’t work
In the article, Ham Mihan dealt with Trump’s maximum pressure on Iran, writing: Tensions between Iran and the US have once again peaked. Trump once again applied his maximum pressure campaign to Iran, tightened sanctions and signed a memorandum of understanding from the president targeting Iran’s oil exports. At the same time, Iranian leaders refused to negotiate with the United States. Without a doubt, this exchange of positions will not resolve the dispute between Iran and the United States for a foreseeable future. In reality, the only effect of sanctions is to strengthen conservatives and weaken reformists. Recently, Iran’s ultra-conservative movement has been talking about nuclear deterrence. Under these circumstances, it is clear that maximum pressures do not produce results because there is no strategic goal behind this policy.
Arman-e-Melli: Iran will not negotiate under pressure
In his analysis, Ahman Emery discussed as a mediator the denial of senior officials’ visits to Iran: Recently, newspapers have been trying to convey this idea that high-ranking officials’ visits to Iran are intended to send messages from the US to Iran. This is while Iranian Foreign Ministry officials have announced that these visits have nothing to do with Iran or the United States. The reality is that when Trump signed the biggest pressure policy on Iran, the Iranian government firmly announced that it would not negotiate under pressure or threat under any circumstances. But people and even some political officials still hope that a solution has been found to lift the sanctions. The US appears to be trying to force Iran to give concessions to possible negotiations by applying economic pressure. Past experience also shows that this strategy has not been successful and that Iran is still in its position. Therefore, it is the United States that must accept Iranian terms to begin negotiations on an equal footing.