Tehran – In an interview with Jam-e-Jam newspaper, former diplomat Alileza Sheikh Atah tackles European hostility towards Iran, who believes that negotiations with them will not be fruitful.
He said: Europe’s current stance on Iran has repeatedly threatened to set the stage for the attack via a resolution of the IAEA Committee, to repeatedly threaten to explicitly approve the attack (of Israeli law) of the attack on Iran, and to activate the snapback mechanism that will ultimately revive the UN Security Council sanctions (proven to cooperation between the UK, France and Germany products. Their recent actions in the past few talks, including the most recent one held in Istanbul, are particularly in Israeli. Given Le’s recent attacks and Iran’s response, it reveals unwillingness rooted in their growing awareness of Iran’s ability to resist sanctions and respond militarily. Giving Europeans diplomatic opportunities is a serious mistake. None of the European countries can be trusted. Europe has lost its previous economic power. And given global competition, it has become less qualified as an influential actor compared to the US, China and BRICS. At best, it serves merely as an implementer of American and Israeli strategies.
Sobh-e-no: Iran strongly supports the stability of the Caucasus
The US and its allies are trying to blow unrest in the Caucasus, but the Islamic Republic of Iran has adopted a logical and responsible position. Not only does Tehran pursue regional stability, it advocates for peaceful conflict resolution through regional dialogue without foreign intervention. Recent military training by Iranian troops in the northwest of the country emphasizes that Tehran will not allow the Caucasus to be the stage for anti-Iranian operations. The Republic of Azerbaijan is currently facing a strategic decision. By continuing to maintain political independence and refraining from joining in inflammatory coalitions, or taking steps with neighbouring states towards shared development, repeating the Ukrainian path, we face US-global Zionism and domestic disruption, security threats, and regional separation. Iran is undoubtedly ready to support peace and stability in the Caucasus, as it has in the past, but the greed of the West cannot compromise national security. History may repeat itself, but learning from its lessons remains the only path to overcoming future challenges.
Etemad: Diplomacy or war?
In his memo, Etemad discussed the revival of diplomacy with Europe, writing: Europe is very interested in lifting sanctions against Iran and normalizing the situation that will restore traditional trade with the rich Middle East, and Iran needs to take advantage of this opportunity by pursuing a path to restore diplomacy. In this respect, European troikas are attempting to play an effective role in managing crisis while trying to activate snapback mechanisms. European troika believes that current (secondary) sanctions against Iran have been imposed by the US, and that European banks and businesses are reluctantly protecting them. However, it is believed that Europe is considering future lifting of sanctions against Iran, depending on the type of practical steps that Iran will take in the future. Europe and the United States (along with Iran, China and Russia) were involved in drafting the JCPOA. The snapback mechanism was an important knot because if Tehran violated the JCPOA, he would not want to grant Iran’s immunity from the resurrection of the accusation settlement. But in a new situation, they are thinking of determining whether Iran can prevent revitalization in the shortest time remaining, make meaningful concessions, secure agreements and build trust!
Ettelaat: Tehran has an eye
In the commentary, Etterat worked on a visit to Israeli Strategy Minister Ron Dahmer and a visit to the US by Tuchi Hanedbbi, the administration’s national security adviser. The region’s security maps have changed, with Israel and Iran exceeding the limits of warning and threats, testing the power of unity in military conflicts. The US is also fluctuating between two approaches: pressure and negotiation. In the meantime, all eyes are on Tehran, confirming which direction they will take to continue interaction with Europe and the International Atomic Energy Agency. The key point is that after the recent war, Iran also shows signs of returning to the negotiation table. Different and relatively mild statements by Pezeschkian and Aragut about negotiations should not be ignored. However, Tehran simultaneously sends a message that military responses will be inevitable if attacks are repeated. It is clear that no decisions will be made about the future of the region without taking into consideration Iran’s position, military capabilities and foreign policy approach.