By Najah Mohammed Ali
It is highly unusual for a U.S. administration to resort to unconventional channels to deliver its letters—especially when more powerful and effective ones, such as Russia, are available. So why did Washington choose to send its letter through the UAE, even though Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had just visited Tehran? And why didn’t Moscow convey the letter, despite Trump himself asking Putin to mediate with Iran?
These questions reveal deeper layers of the crisis. The choice of a mediator speaks volumes about the level of trust the U.S. places in those it believes can help bridge differences. Yet, it seems the real issue is not about who delivered the letter but rather its content and timing.
Why Didn’t Russia Deliver Trump’s Letter?
Russia, with its strategic ties to Tehran, is not a mere courier that Washington can use at its convenience and discard when circumstances change. Moscow fully understands that Iran is not a nation that succumbs to pressure easily. Moreover, the Russians know that Trump’s demands go far beyond the nuclear deal—they extend into regional and security issues that Tehran simply cannot afford to compromise on.
When Lavrov bluntly stated that Washington’s demands were “unrealistic,” he was sending a clear signal: Moscow would not be part of any pressure campaign against Iran. This stance was further reinforced by Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia’s representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency, who asserted that these demands would never be met. That explains why Moscow refused to play the role of a messenger in this case.
With Russia declining the task, Washington had to look for another intermediary. That’s where the UAE stepped in—not just as a conduit but perhaps as a player seeking to secure its own political gains from the process.
Why Did the UAE Take on This Mission?
The UAE was not acting as a neutral mail carrier for Washington’s letter. In recent years, Abu Dhabi has attempted to balance its ties between Washington and Tehran. It softened its rhetoric toward Iran and even pursued indirect communication channels, particularly after realizing that Trump’s “maximum pressure” strategy had failed to achieve its desired results, instead solidifying Iran’s resolve.
Yet, a crucial question remains: Why did Trump’s letter take an entire week to reach Ayatollah Khamenei? And why wasn’t it sent through traditional diplomatic channels like Switzerland, which represents U.S. interests in Iran? The delay could indicate internal divisions within the Trump administration over the effectiveness of such a letter—or perhaps attempts to persuade other intermediaries before resorting to the UAE.
Trump’s Contradiction: New Sanctions and a Call for Talks?
If Trump was genuinely interested in opening dialogue with Iran, why did he simultaneously impose new sanctions on Iran’s oil minister? Targeting a sovereign ministry in such a manner is nothing short of an attempt to impose preconditions on any potential negotiations—something Iran sees as completely unacceptable.
Tehran will not give away concessions for free, especially when it comes to its sovereignty. Washington may believe that combining economic pressure with diplomatic overtures will push Iran into talks on U.S. terms. However, history has proven otherwise: the more pressure Iran faces, the firmer its stance becomes.
Iran-Russia-China Military Drills: Messages on the Negotiation Table
Amid these developments, the joint military drills between Iran, Russia, and China sent a loud and clear message to Washington: Iran is not alone. These exercises were not just a show of force; they were a strategic assertion that Tehran has powerful alliances capable of shifting the regional balance of power.
The timing was no coincidence. The drills took place precisely as Trump sought to reopen negotiation channels. This suggests that Iran was making a statement: any future talks will not be held under duress, and the new geopolitical realities that Tehran has helped shape must be acknowledged.
Trump, Iran Is Not North Korea
Perhaps Trump believes that the tactics he used with North Korea will work with Iran. But the reality is starkly different. Iran is not an isolated nation, nor is it desperate for a flashy deal that would hand Trump a quick political win. On the contrary, Iran believes time is on its side, and its strategy of endurance is its most effective weapon against U.S. pressure.
Washington may attempt to redefine the terms of negotiation, but sooner or later, it will realize that Iran is not a player that can be coerced into submission. Trump must understand that any agreement ignoring Iran’s conditions and strategic interests is bound to fail.
Road to Safety: On Iran’s Terms or No Talks at All
Iran has not forgotten that Trump ordered the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani—the beloved commander who led the fight against ISIS, the very organization Trump admitted the U.S. had created. Tehran is not in a position to accept dictates from Washington.
If the U.S. truly wants meaningful negotiations, it must come to the table willing to listen—not merely to dictate terms. Iran has demonstrated its ability to withstand sanctions and is prepared to continue doing so for as long as necessary.
Trump may envision himself as the master dealmaker, but when it comes to Iran, there is no deal to be made unless it aligns with Tehran’s terms. Washington must either accept this reality or brace itself for further complications and tensions that will serve no one’s interests.
The message is clear: Trump, if you’re looking for an exit, the road to safety runs through Tehran—but only on Iran’s terms. Otherwise, don’t waste your time!
No comments:
Post a Comment