In the commentary, Keehan’s newspaper analyzed Donald Trump’s letter to the leaders of the Islamic Revolution for negotiations.
He said this was the time when the US president sent a letter to Iranian leaders. Unlike previous oral and written letters from the US president to Iranian leaders, letters to Trump leaders were not made secretly or without publication. Rather, for the first time Trump himself made the issue public. It was made public even when the letter had not been sent to Tehran, according to American officials. For this reason, Iranian officials have declared that they have not received such letters. This action means destroying the letter. Trump’s mistake is that in the field of negotiations he is not only outcome-oriented, but also likes the process. Trump’s goal with regard to this action is to bring the ball back to Iran’s court. Before this, when Trump signed the president’s memorandum to restore maximum pressure, he demanded negotiations with Iran. At the time, the revolutionary leader refused to negotiate in the clearest way possible, saying that the speech would not be “wise, intelligent, honorable.”
Jam-e-Jam: negotiations with the US will not produce results
In the commentary, Jam-e-Jam tackled the violation of American promises and fantastic trust in the United States by his home’s parent-Americans. According to this paper, recent actions in America have shown that it always prefers its benefits over everything else, and that even its allies are willing to humiliate. This incident is a lesson for supporters of negotiations with the US, and most importantly, negotiations with the US have no consequences. Leaders have repeatedly emphasized that negotiations with the United States could not only solve the country’s problems, but could also lead to American demands and the imposition of humiliation on the people. The recent US actions against Ukrainian President Voldimi Zelensky are a clear example of this reality. Meanwhile, negotiators with the US should know that consultations with the US are not sustainable. The outcome of such negotiations has always proven harmful to weaker parties, as America does not want to accept the rights of other countries. Some believe negotiations can reduce pressure and bring rapid benefits, but these compromises are temporary and will end up at a national disadvantage in the long run.
Hamshali: What will the quality of Iran’s reaction to Trump’s letters be?
In an interview with international affairs expert Fassid Baghrian, Hamshali discussed Trump’s letter to Iran. He said: Speculation about Trump’s direct letter to revolutionary leaders continues in the domestic and international media and political circles, but attention must focus more on Iran’s response to the letters than anything else. Trump is trying to build a gap between the government and people in Iran. He wants to create an image in the minds of people that America is seeking negotiations and settlement, but Iran blames for failing to make a round-trip. Assuming this letter has reached Iran, the revolutionary leader will not respond to it. If Iran responds to a letter, it falls within the structural framework. For example, the terms of negotiation of the Islamic Republic are set by the government or the Supreme National Security Council. On the other side, if there is no response to this letter, it means that it does not emphasize negotiations with the US.
Farhikhtegan: Common Goals and Two Conflict Solutions via CCW
In the article, Fahhictegan deals with the conflict between supporters and opponents of the Convention on Certain Traditional Arms (CCW) in Parliament, and the main conflict between supporters and opponents participating in the CCW is whether the treaty benefits Iran or damages the Islamic Republic. Supporters see it as an opportunity to mitigate aggressive diplomacy and pressure, while the enemy sees it as a step towards surrendering to the US will and limiting its defensive capabilities. The key point is that both sides acknowledge that these treaties are under Western influence but propose different solutions. Supporters support limited engagement, while opponents view international commitment as dangerous. The impact of Trump’s executive memorandum also added to this ambiguity.