The difference between direct and indirect negotiation; Trump has two scenarios in the face of Iran

href = “https://www.mehrnews.com”> Mehr News Agency , International Group : Since the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, efforts to weaken Iran have been the top priority of the US presidents, and Tehran has always been an essential obstacle to the realization of American evil.

The US government has used all the tools and strategies to confront Iran, while knowing that any military strikes against Iran has the economic and financial consequences of the country, continues to threaten the case to pursue the case.

“Warda Saad” Mehr News Agency correspondent in this regard has a conversation with “Dr. Talal Attrisi” Social Science and Regional Researcher, which is as follows:

US and Zionist regime threats to the Islamic Republic of Iran have reached its highest, and these sides are not even reluctant to threaten Iranian religious and political leaders. How do you evaluate the horizon of these threats, and where do you comment on Americans’ savagery?

US threats against Iran is a method used by all consecutive US governments, including Republicans or Democrats, since the victory of the Islamic Revolution. These threats were not only militarily raised and have sometimes been sanctioned and siege. But in all these steps, the method of consecutive US governments, although accompanied by stretching, has been similar, and the Islamic Republic of Iran has always been in the main program of the US presidents.

current US President Donald Trump’s performance, though slightly different, is no different in its main theme. He has the highest level of cooperation with the dreams of the Zionist regime, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has put in the geographical development of the regime. Netanyahu is trying to realize something called the “new Middle East” and has opened a special account in US support; Because it cannot do anything alone and make no change in the region. The war in Gaza and Lebanon shows that all the decisions of Tel Aviv must be accompanied by US approval and support.

threats against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the threat to assassination and the like, are a kind of psychological warfare against the country, as the US sees Tehran as an essential obstacle to its projects and the Zionist regime in the Middle East and believes that Iran is in the center of the country. It is Zionist. That is why the United States has applied widespread psychological pressures and military threats, and this in the message of US President Donald Trump to Iranian leaders was clear that it was proposing a dialogue on the one hand and threatened its rain missile.

Iranians interacted with this approach based on their own position and personality and sent a similar message to the American side that they never reject the principle of indirect conversations. Tehran, on the other hand, condemned the threats against Iran and announced that it would be ready to respond to any side that cooperates with the United States on the land.

in the shadow of American savagery towards the Islamic Republic of Iran there are two scenarios:

first scenario that negotiations take place, because the US president looks only about financial interests and this scenario is more likely.

The second scenario is the option of war that is costly for all parties and burns the Middle East region and causes great material, economic and oil damages. This way, in my opinion, Trump will choose the first option and if the first option prefers it will probably retreat from his previous positions.

Why did Iranian officials reject his suggestions in response to the US President’s letter? Why does Tehran consider direct negotiations to be unacceptable in these circumstances? What is the difference between Trump’s direct negotiations and indirect negotiations proposed by Iranians?

Iran’s response to the US letter was quite clear and clear on fundamental issues. The main point of Iran’s response to the threat was that the Iranians would not enter into talks under the threat. This is what I mentioned and said that the nature of the Iranian personality is to reject the threat from any side, whether it is a great government or the European Union or NATO or the like. However, the Iranians interacted with the letter with political realism and political softness, which the leader of the revolution at one stage described as “heroic softness”. This means that the Iranians went to the battlefield while they know how to manage the field. The key to Iran’s reaction was to accept any threat, and the Iranians responded that they were able to express their power against any threat and could even stop Trump from thinking about war.

The second point in realism in “heroic softness” included accepting the idea of ​​negotiation. The Iranians stated two conditions in this regard; First, the negotiations should not include Iranian capabilities such as ballistic missiles or any kind of Iranian power lever. Also, negotiations should not include regional relations between Iranians or its allies in the region. If these two conditions are accepted, the Iranians can negotiate and do not impose anything on others.

The third point includes indirect negotiations. This shows that Iranians do not trust the US, especially the Trump administration, because it canceled the agreement that was signed in year 6.

indirect negotiations mean preliminary negotiations, meaning that Iranians are in no hurry. This shows that Iran is not eager to negotiate directly with the United States despite the economic problems caused by sanctions. Another important point is that Iran is not in a hurry to negotiate or conquer other parties. This is the main difference between direct and indirect negotiations. Yes, there may be direct negotiations between the parties in the future, but this requires time and trust and recognition based on the fact that Americans are serious in the negotiations and will enter the negotiations equally. If the Iranians understand this in indirect negotiations, they will then enter the direct negotiations.

Iranian authorities responded to Americans challenges with all power and determination. However, in the past we saw that they interacted with patience and wisdom in interacting with strategic issues. Perhaps Ali Larijani’s remarks by the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution of Iran on the possibility of producing an atomic bomb should be one of Iran’s most challenging positions against American aggression. In addition, the commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have responded strongly to any aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran, whether they are a verbal war or are Iranians ready to raise the level of confrontation?

There is no doubt that we are in unstable regional states today. What happened in Syria is the most important title of these regional developments. The situation in Syria today is unstable, and clashes between Türkiye and Israel and the US existence are followed. These clashes have shown the unity of Syria. While some Syrian internal currents do not believe that the new sovereignty seeks to preserve its influence among the Kurds and the Kurds, and armed groups do not want to enter the Syrian military. On the other hand, there are regional concerns about the developments in Syria.

Iraq and Jordan’s concern has made the regional situation more unstable. The conflict continues on several fronts, and each side is trying to accomplish the most leverage of power. This is what the Zionist regime is looking for. After stopping the war in Lebanon, Tel Aviv sought to expand its influence in Syria to prevent it from being powerful, and the country would not again become a link between the resistance. This shows that the weakening of the resistance -centered countries is at the forefront of the US and the Zionist regime, and that Iran is at the forefront of this axis.

Syrian events have weakened Iran and resistance to lose this strategic and important position, but hostile parties to Iran believe that they can further advance to Iran and increase pressure and threats to Iran. Iran’s nuclear program has been the most important excuse to confront the country since five years ago, but we know that their problem with Iran is not its nuclear program; Rather, it is because of its position on Palestine and the axis of the resistance of the region and its confrontation with the influence of the West and the lack of recognition of the Zionist regime.

However, threats are one thing and the implementation of the threat is something else. Iran today has a lot of leverage. Iran’s defeat in Syria does not mean that Iran has been weakened, Iran has lost its foreign power leverage, but at the level of domestic power it is still as in the past and has even unveiled its weapons, missile and technical power.

Iranians have the power to threaten their nuclear infrastructure, and this naturally raises concern for the Zionist regime, because it knows that Iran’s nuclear weapons means the end of Israel’s deterrence power. The Iranians have used all of these threats, and the positions of political figures such as Ali Larijani and Kamal Kharrazi, the former Iranian Foreign Minister, are a kind of power over the position that Iran may address, which is the enemy’s deterrence towards any thinking. Iranians say: We have power and this power is increasing day by day, so you need to think more about any rape of Iran.

d Shadow all of these conditions do you predict that the Trump administration will accept Iran’s proposal for indirect negotiations? How to bring Trump down from the high level of authoritarianism that has been raised by public and explicit international Zionism and the Zionist regime on the possibility of invading the Islamic Republic?

After Iran’s message to Donald Trump, it is clear that the routine goes to indirect negotiations and the US president agree. As we said earlier, this reflects a step back in the US President, and he has diminished his high level of demands against Iran. Naturally, this is also an impact on Trump’s policies on the region and the world. As such, indirect negotiations are most likely in Oman, as Iran has proposed to interfere with Oman.

When these talks begin to continue for a long time, the Zionist regime will sink. This is an important point, because the Zionist Prime Minister, who described the Hague Tribunal as a war criminal, is looking for a war scenario and wants to bring America to war with Iran, because it alone cannot enter this scenario.

So if the Trump administration seeks to negotiate with Iran, it means that the war scenario against the country is at least short-term and the longer the negotiations become longer. So indirect negotiations appear to begin in the coming weeks and will probably take a long time, as complicated cases arise and there is no confidence between the two parties and first confidence in the US government must be at least given, because Iran has no confidence in the current US government.

neighboring governments express their concern over the possibility of military confrontation between the powerful Iranian forces and the US Army. What do you think will be in relation to the relevant Iranian officials and how do you evaluate the impact of any major war in the region against these governments and the global economy?