ISSN 2330-717X

Negotiating With America: Breaking The Life Spell Of Supreme Leader – OpEd

By

At a joint news conference by Emmanuel Macron and Donald Trump, it was announced that Mr. Macron and the French diplomatic apparatus were working to arrange a meeting between Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Donald Trump. Donald Trump said he would welcome such a meeting likely to take place in the coming weeks.

Mr. Macron’s remarks indicated that a meeting between the Iranian and American presidents was a precondition for the existing agreement mediated by France.

But Ali Rabiei, a government spokesman in a conversation with the Javan Government website, responded to the question of what was our position on the United States and was there going to be a negotiation, saying: The right way to global security is diplomacy and everyone’s benefit is in diplomacy, but talking to America today is not at all possible and the situation is not fair (Javan online, August 27)

The site added that Mohammad Javad Zarif, who traveled to China on Monday, told reporters “I told in Biaritz that there would be no meeting with US officials.”

The unexpected return to the G7 conference site while meeting with President Macron in Paris on Friday, August 23, increases this possibility that he had brought the positive response of the Supreme Leader to the French proposal package. Is. And in this French package, the two presidents were scheduled to meet, as is evident at the press conference of President Macron and President Trump.

However, even President Hassan Rouhani, who is reportedly scheduled to meet with Trump, announced the day after the news was broadcast on public television, that he was not ready to “just take a photo op” and the condition for meeting is that the US would at least repent of its sanctions and withdrawal from JCPOA.

But why do senior Iranian officials in Iran somehow deny meeting the two Iranian and US presidents?

Looking at Iran-US relations from the past, we have seen that there has been no meeting or dialogue between the Presidents of the two countries so far. At the time, US President Bill Clinton requested a dialogue with the Iranian president on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. But the then President responded negatively, refusing to meet with Clinton.

This was also the case with Hassan Rouhani. Obama made the request, but only ended up with a phone call. This while it was likely that Obama would grant the regime more concessions.

From the onset, the Mullahs’ regime, with slogans against the United States and Israel, managed to gather backward and disadvantaged classes with religious motives. Relying on the religious dogmas of the Middle Ages, the Iranian regime is at war and hostile to the US with the modern and progressive world. This regime’s treatment of women inside Iran is the best evidence of this backward thinking. The slogans of “Death to America,” which were daily chanted on Friday prayers, could have maintained the same backward strata, along with a bunch of newcomers, inside and outside Iran.

Backward culturally and socially, this regime uses the most advanced missiles or weapons of the twentieth century and makes good use of the latest communications developments.

The regime has either suppressed or exterminated progressive forces in Iranian society with the slogan of death to America. By occupying the US embassy, ​​the Iranian regime wanted to cover the promises it had made to the people before the fall of the Shah and the failure to act because of its medieval nature and to oust the progressive forces of society. The regime has always used anti-American slogans as a defense shield. And now how can it throw this shield away? And that’s why the spokesmen for the government, and even Zarif, deny it.

Tasnim, the IRGC owned website wrote on August 27: “French have said the new package includes Iran-US negotiation on some disputed issues … if Iran agrees to such a negotiation, … this dangerous mistake will not only not end even if Iran accepts all the current US conditions, but it will also bring new problems to Iran.”

These new problems are nothing more than the breaking of the life spell of Supreme Leader because the Iranian regime, which is based on the supremacy of clergy (Velayat-e-faqih), has always survived based on both internal repression and warmongering in its region. And now in the negotiations, it must give up these two foundations that have provided its survival.

*Hamid Enayat is an Iranian human rights activist and analyst based in Europe.



Please Donate Today
Did you enjoy this article? Then please consider donating today to ensure that Eurasia Review can continue to be able to provide similar content.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.