The announcement of the writing and sending of a letter by Donald Trump, the US President to Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, has brought this issue back to the political scene and has led to various reactions. During this time, domestic and foreign media have tried to publish details of the content of this letter by speculating about its content.
But the important point is the contradictory positions of the White House in its interaction with the Islamic Republic of Iran. This letter, like other actions by American officials, is an example of the dual approach of the United States, as it enters the political scene with threats and pressure on the one hand, and with the appearance of a willingness to negotiate on the other. This practice, of course, is precedent-setting and has been exploited by other US presidents before.
A review of historical documents confirms that the policy of negotiating with the Islamic Republic was officially raised during the Barack Obama era, and the necessary space for negotiations was created between the parties. But the passage of time has proven that this policy was more aimed at attracting public opinion to convey the message to the international community that the United States has been the pioneer in negotiating with Iran.
What stands out more than any other factor is that the Iranian nation witnessed America’s breach of promise in the JCPOA issue; the party that claimed to lift sanctions, but in practice did not fulfill its commitments.
America’s support for the Saddam regime in the imposed war and the imposition of comprehensive sanctions against the Iranian people are part of this historical experience that clearly shows that trusting America is a wrong and fruitless strategy.
Donald Trump, who is considered one of the most hated American presidents due to the assassination of General Soleimani and his hostile actions against Iran, has hypocritically proposed negotiations and engagement with Iran. However, the United States’ requests to adjust relations with our country have always been accompanied by preconditions that are not consistent with the manifesto of the Islamic Revolution. Perhaps, Abbas Araghchi, the Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran, emphasized during the sending of this letter: We have never submitted to negotiations that imply domination, and we will not.
The White House’s non-commitment and hostile behavior has not been limited to Iran, and has even targeted US allies.
Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un met in Singapore in 2018. The result of this meeting was the signing of a document and the issuance of a joint statement. This statement included North Korea’s commitment to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, the return of the bodies of American soldiers killed in the Korean War, the establishment of new relations between the parties, and the provision of security guarantees by the United States to North Korea. However, it did not take long for Washington to fulfill its obligations, including the reduction of sanctions, after North Korea adhered to the agreement.
The behavior of the occupant of the White House towards European allies and even Canada is also unfriendly. He has accused Europe, which has been a staunch follower of Washington’s policies, of “abusing” the United States, imposing a 25 percent tariff on imports from the bloc and threatening to impose more tariffs on Europe.
The situation is worse for Canada. Trump has disparaged Justin Trudeau, calling him a “governor” when he was Canadian Prime Minister.
In addition to Greenland, which is under Danish rule, Trump even covets Canadian territory and has repeatedly said that Canada should become the 51st state of the United States.
However, in this analysis, we will first discuss the many reasons for distrust of the United States and its effects on Iranian foreign policy, and then explain the Islamic Republic of Iran’s possible response to a deal.
Reasons for distrust of the United States
- America’s role in the imposed war (Iran - Iraq war)
One of the most important manifestations of America’s hostile behavior against the Iranian people was its open and covert support for Saddam’s regime during the imposed war (1970-1988). In addition to providing weapons and military intelligence to Iraq, the United States also accused Iran of continuing the war in international forums. Numerous documents indicate that the United States did everything it could to defend the Ba'ath regime's invasion and, in this regard, ignored the incident of the chemical attacks on Halabja. This bitter historical experience is recorded in the collective memory of Iranians and has formed one of the foundations of severe distrust of the United States.
- The impact of sanctions on the Iranian people
The hostile actions of the United States were not limited to this, and Washington and its allies imposed widespread and increasing sanctions against Iran; Sanctions that targeted important parts of the country's economy (including banking, oil, petrochemical, pharmaceutical, transportation, etc.) and put additional pressure on people's daily lives, but their dual policies continued, and these deceitful leaders, on various occasions - often involving direct interference in Iranian affairs - disseminated biased messages with political goals and introduced themselves as supporters of the Iranian people. This contradictory practice is a counterexample to America's demagoguery in action.
The Supreme Leader of the Revolution has repeatedly emphasized that sanctions are a cruel and inhumane tool that the United States uses to achieve its political desires, a tool that has lost its function and been neutralized thanks to the scientific jihad of Iranian intellectuals.
- Violation of Commitments in the JCPOA Affair
The JCPOA experience is another concrete example that showed that the United States is not faithful to its commitments. During the meeting of thousands of people from different walks of life from all over the country with the Supreme Leader, he called the “JCPOA experience” a clear example of the correctness of the necessity of distrusting enemies and noted: Today, even diplomatic officials and those who were present at the negotiations repeat the fact that the United States is breaking its promises and, behind its smooth and smooth language, is busy obstructing and destroying Iran’s economic relations with other countries.
Of course, these wise guidelines have been pointed out by the supreme leader at various times, and he invited and reminded officials of the need to use the experiences of the 11th and 12th governments in the future: In this government, it became clear that trusting the West does not work, and they do not help, and they will strike wherever they can, and if they do not strike anywhere, it is because they cannot.
The prediction that after the US withdrawal from the JCPOA and Washington's efforts in harassing measures against Iran, it was realized and confirmed that the US policy has not changed and that this country is seeking to impose its will beyond the previous frameworks; a trend that demonstrated the bullying nature of the US and showed for the umpteenth time that such an approach cannot be expected to lead to a fair agreement.
- US Interventions in the Region
Another root of Iran's distrust of the US is Washington's all-out support for the Zionist regime in Palestine and its repeated intervention in the affairs of countries in the region; From the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to military adventures in Syria and support for terrorist groups.
Unconditional support for the massacre of the people of Gaza in the past year is another factor in the regional evils of the Yankees in West Asia to establish their desired order in this strategic region, while these interventions are contrary to the will of the nations of the region and Islamic principles, and the Islamic Republic of Iran considers itself obliged to confront these crimes and expose the arrogant nature of the United States, and naturally this approach does not please the United States, its allies and its infantry.
- The experience of other countries in trusting America
A look at the fate of countries that have trusted America reveals bitter realities. The recent experience of the Ukrainian government and people with the humiliating behavior of the United States clearly proved that the United States' strategy of colonialism has not changed, and the experience of countries such as Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan was exactly repeated for Ukrainians, and the destruction, chaos, and gambling on the country's natural resources and capacities are the share of the people who, according to their officials, relied on the United States to get out of the crisis.
Possible response to a deal
According to unofficial transcripts of the letter's contents, one of the proposed preconditions is the US's open interference in Iran's diplomatic relations with regional allies. It is said that in this letter, Trump asked the Islamic Republic of Iran to adjust its relations with Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen (which are considered part of the axis of resistance).
In the following, given that this news has not been denied by official officials so far, we will continue our review and analysis on this basis and answer the question: why should Iran's response to this request, which is more like a deal than a negotiation, naturally be negative?
Some of the reasons for this are as follows:
1. The axis of resistance; beyond a political coalition
In the eyes of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the axis of resistance is not simply a military or political coalition, but rather a manifestation of Islamic-revolutionary identity and ideals that are tied to anti-oppression and defense of the oppressed in the world.
2. The approach of cultural and economic resistance
The Islamic Republic of Iran believes that the only way to neutralize external pressures is comprehensive and multidimensional resistance, with cultural resistance and resistance economy as two fundamental pillars.
3. Negotiation without preconditions; a fundamental principle in any international dialogue
The Leader of the Revolution has always emphasized that real negotiations must take place without imposing preconditions. Whenever the United States or any other power unilaterally raises preconditions, it shows that it is not seeking dialogue and understanding; rather, it wants to impose its own demands.
Strategy
Finally, it should be said that the Islamic Republic of Iran's positions regarding negotiations are completely transparent. Because it has never deviated from negotiations and has dialogue with various governments on the agenda with a permanent premise - which is based on preserving national dignity and interests.
Therefore, considering what we have reviewed so far, it should be said that Trump is trying to create a psychological war among public opinion by implementing a combined program against Iran and by imposing increasing pressure on the people, to acquit himself and introduce himself as a messenger of peace.
The reaction of the Leader of the Revolution in this regard was, as before, that: Iran is not looking for war, but if the Americans and their agents take the wrong action, Iran's countermeasures are decisive and certain; the one who will lose the most is America.
Undoubtedly, these clear statements have represented Iran's positions to the White House and its allies and have shown that the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic depends on adhering to the principles of the Islamic Revolution, relying on domestic capacities, enhancing defense and deterrence capabilities, maintaining national cohesion, and strengthening relations with like-minded countries.
In conclusion, it must be said that these lofty goals can only be achieved if the role of youth in governing the country is strengthened. Also, increasing seriousness in strengthening the resistance and cultural economy should also be prioritized. These measures, while protecting the country from external pressures, will prevent the decision-making of some complacent and careless people who consider a deal with the great devil to be the solution to all problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment