Tehran – In his analysis, Kayhan tackled Trump’s dual policy on Iran, writing: Regarding the principles of international law.
Instead of issuing a national security memorandum to implement sanctions more closely, for example, he could have taken a practical step to lifting the sanctions as the first step. In other words, he should have shown that at least the atmosphere governing the negotiations is not one of the threats or pressures, but one of equality-based respect and dialogue. What Trump currently calls “the subject of negotiations” is simply the issue of Iran, which has not acquired nuclear weapons. This was not the case during his first term as president. Shortly after signing documents to withdraw from the JCPOA in 2018, Mike Pompeo set 12 terms to begin negotiations with Iran. But this time they first set the terms and then proposed an agreement!
Jam-e-Jam: Iran – The importance of weed regional cooperation
In the article, Jam et Jam debated the Iranian Deputy Minister of Politics to Ankara, writing: Given the shared interest in many regional issues, both countries can pave the way for sustainable development in the region. As a bridge between Asia and Europe, Turkey has extensive opportunities to increase economic ties with Iran. Similarly, Iran has its abundant energy resources, economic capabilities and strategic geographical location, and can play an important role in meeting Turkey’s needs. In general, continuing consultations at high levels between Iran and Turkey and establishing a mechanism of cooperation in various fields is effective not only to contribute to the interests of both countries, but also to create regional stability and security. As powers in two regions, Ankara and Tehran can play an important role in helping promote regional peace and development through active diplomacy and constructive cooperation.
Arman-e-Emrooz: Negotiations with the US. Too far, too close
In an interview with international affairs analyst Dr. Salaheddin Harsani, Arman-E-Emrooz discussed the issue of negotiations with the United States. He said: Iran’s “no to negotiation” position is not an official position, but a declaration and a tactical position. Furthermore, Europe is not allowed to negotiate with Iran due to Trump’s repeated warnings, so the decision not to negotiate or speak to the US does not mean that it is ready to negotiate with Europe. Trump said anyone who agrees to Iran will be punished and approved by us. Furthermore, if Europe is willing to negotiate with Iran, Israel’s interests must also be taken into consideration. In other words, the terms of European negotiations with Iran should take into account the interests of the US and Israel. Given the geopolitics of demand, national decision makers will turn Trump’s declared tactical threat into opportunities in the form of calculated and rational negotiations, preparing situations to improve public living conditions. It would be better. The terms of negotiations are much closer than expected.
Farhikhtegan: Where does your enthusiasm for negotiation lead to?
In the memo, Fahhictegan dealt with reformist enthusiasm for negotiations in both cases. It wrote: Trump has signed his second memorandum in favor of the greatest pressure on Iran. The logic of those who pay attention to international relations from an idealistic perspective is that by encouraging a political system, peace can be established in the world. While most negotiating politicians are idealists, their claims and statements can even go beyond idealistic boundaries. The two US President’s memorandums focus on key issues in Iran and effectively target its existence, but some reformers say nothing new happened in the memorandum. It’s there. Some politicians have insisted on paving the way for negotiations, which is why they distort and interpret Trump’s memorandum. If Trump explicitly states that negotiations must result in the closure of Iran’s missiles and military programs, will they still accept it?