TEHRAN - Kayhan dedicated its editorial to the need for vigilance by the Iranian negotiating team with the U.S.
in Oman and wrote: The third round of negotiations is scheduled to be held again next Saturday in Muscat, and like the second round, it will be indirect.Both our nuclear team and the American side know that the main points of dispute are over the enrichment level, providing guarantees to lift sanctions, and the order of steps to return to dedications.
Trumps sixty-day due date to reach an agreement and the function of Omans mediation might lead the course of settlements either towards development or a deadlock.
Our experience with the JCPOA and the policy that the Americans have constantly followed in discussions should have shown by now that with more than twenty years of talks on the nuclear issue, there is no other way for any mistakes or mistakes.
Therefore, the nuclear group, especially the professional group that is set up to participate in the information of any contract beginning on Wednesday (April 23), should focus on every word of the American side so that an error like the text of the JCPOA is not repeated.Siasat-e-Rooz: Moving in the ideal directionSiasat-e-Rooz committed its editorial to Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchis see to Beijing, arguing: One of the important objectives of Araqchis see to China is to continue assessments and the role that China would play in the nuclear negotiations.
Although indirect negotiations are presently underway in between Iran and the United States, and some talks have actually likewise taken place with the Europeans, Tehran stresses that it will always remember the role and position of China and Russia and will take advantage of their capabilities versus the behavior of the West.
Iran, China, and Russia are the primary players of a brand-new world order versus the Wests devastating unilateralism.
They highlight that the world no longer needs the crisis-generating nature of capitalism and requires new approaches.
Attaining this needs intensive and numerous consultations, and Araqchis see to Beijing might be a step in this instructions.
Proof reveals that the United States, despite claims that it looks for settlements, is assembling a puzzle to surround the 3 countries militarily.
In these circumstances, it seems that the convergence of the three nations against this military conspiracy is an undeniable necessity.Jam-e-Jam: Trumps unsteady habits is a major difficulty in negotiationsJam-e-Jam talked about the possibility of Trump accepting Irans rightful needs in settlements in an interview with Dr.
Seyyed Mohammad Marandi, a political analyst.
He said: Trumps habits and choices in recent years have always been accompanied by instability and abrupt turns.
We have seen this instability both in the trade war and in local concerns such as the Gaza genocide, where one day he favors a ceasefire and the next day he favors genocide.
Regarding Irans nuclear activities, one day he makes harsh declarations and the next day he ends up being mild.
It is impossible to make accurate predictions about Trump.
Naturally, this makes the path of negotiations harder.
The bottom line is that even if any contract is reached with the United States, the certainty that the American side will remain committed to its responsibilities is still accompanied by severe doubts.
The United States history of breaking its dedications, paired with Trumps unpredictability, are 2 aspects that need to not be disregarded.
It is not possible to draw an exact vision of the future of the settlements at this time.Farhikhtegan: Diplomacy may be a trap to validate harsh measures One of the most likely situations in U.S.-Iran relations is the use of diplomatic negotiations as a trap to justify severe steps, such as attacks on Iranian nuclear centers or resistance groups in the region, particularly in Yemen.
In this situation, Donald Trumps preliminary favorable declarations and strategic silence are part of a possible plan developed to provide the United States as a good-willed negotiator.
Nevertheless, the main objective may be to trigger the negotiations to fail by making undesirable demands and after that legitimizing military action or brand-new sanctions by declaring Irans absence of cooperation.
Many pieces of proof support this possibility.
A military attack on Iran could have significant consequences, including escalating local stress and retaliatory attacks on U.S.
military bases.
The action of resistance groups in Yemen and Lebanon could widen the scope of the dispute and impose heavy political and economic expenses on the United States and its allies.
The history of American foreign policy reveals that such methods have actually been utilized in the past, and the possibility of their repetition can not be ignored.
This post very first appeared/also appeared in Tehran Times