INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
is the umpteenth time a U.S
president has sent a letter to the Iranian Leader
Unlike previous oral and written letters from U.S
presidents to the Iranian leadership, Trump's letter to the Leader was not done secretly or without public announcement
Rather, for the first time, Trump himself made this matter public
Even when, according to an American official, the letter had not been sent to Tehran it was made public
It was for this reason that Iranian officials declared they had not received such a letter
This action means destroying the letter
Trump's mistake is that in the field of negotiations, he is not only result-oriented but also likes the process
Trump's goal with this action is to throw the ball back to Iran's court
Before this, when Trump signed the presidential memorandum to restore the maximum pressure, he requested to negotiate with Iran
of promise and illusionary trust in the U.S
by some pro-Americans at home
This incident is a lesson for supporters of negotiations with America, the most important of which is that negotiation with America do not
The recent behavior of the U.S
toward Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky is a clear example of this reality
On the other side, negotiators with America should know that talks with America are not sustainable
The result of such negotiations always prove detrimental to the weaker party because America is unwilling to accept the rights of other
Some believe that negotiations can reduce pressure and result in quick gains, but these compromises are temporary and will end up to the
letter to Iran in an interview with Farshid Bagherian, an expert on international affairs
Trump is cleverly trying to create a gap between the government and the people inside Iran
Assuming that this letter has reached Iran, the Leader of the Revolution will not respond to it
If Iran is to respond to the letter, it will be within a structural framework
On the other side, if there is no response to this letter, it will mean emphasizing no negotiations with the United States.Farhikhtegan: A
common goal and two opposing solutions over CCWIn an article, Farhikhtegan dealt with the dispute between supporters and opponents of the
Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) in the parliament and wrote: The main dispute between supporters and opponents of joining
the CCW is whether this convention can benefit Iran or will end up damaging to the Islamic Republic
Supporters see it as an opportunity for active diplomacy and reducing pressure, while opponents see it as a step towards surrendering to the
will of the United States and limiting defense capabilities
The key point is that both sides acknowledge that these treaties are under the influence of the West but propose different solutions
Supporters back limited involvement, and opponents see any international commitment as dangerous
The impact of Trump's executive memorandum has also added to this ambiguity.
