Nournews: Contrary to the views of hardliners, the official position of the system is not to block the door to diplomacy and its tools. Based on its national interests, and considering the cost/benefit ratio as well as rational understanding and prior experiences, the system will make full use of these diplomatic capacities.
At a time when some political movements in Iran were stirring anti-diplomatic views within the country, the precise and enlightening words of the Supreme Leader on the day of Eid al-Mab'ath reminded the nation that the door to diplomacy and the strategy of negotiation and transaction remain open.
In the past week or two, opposition to the logic of dialogue, negotiation, and transaction in foreign relations expanded from parliament to the front pages of newspapers, eventually leading to the physical presence of protesters in some streets and squares.
The common thread in all these reactions was the outright rejection of diplomatic solutions, including negotiation. At the same time, some of the protesters interpreted the use of such diplomatic strategies as "selling out the homeland" and "leading Iran into the arms of the United States," thus resurrecting and promoting the dichotomy of service/treason.
It is undeniable that within the realm of diplomacy and among international affairs analysts in the country, there are individuals or groups who hold unfounded optimism or haste in negotiating with Western parties.
These people, with a somewhat simplistic understanding, think that negotiation is merely an operational tactic that can be used, and if it does not yield results, it can be abandoned. Such a perspective may overlook the complexities of international relations and state-to-state political interactions, portraying negotiation as an inherently easy, harmless, and risk-free project. In other words, in contrast to the view that sees negotiation as a clear example of "selling out the homeland," there is another view that sees no risk in negotiation and considers it a neutral act.
Intelligence in global interactions or "caution in transactions with countries," as outlined in the Supreme Leader's speech on Eid al-Mab'ath, positions itself precisely in the middle of these two extremes. Historical precedents show that negotiation, in itself, is neither something necessarily required nor something inherently risky and harmful.
What defines the identity of this diplomatic tool is the proper insight and careful attention towards it. In his speech, the Supreme Leader explained this concept using verses from the Quran, stating that negotiating and transacting with others should not be seen as neglecting the malice and hostility of enemies or as befriending them. Their enmity is far greater than what they express. This precise recommendation serves as a reminder of the undeniable necessity of "caution" during negotiation and transaction. It is not without reason that the following phrase from the Leader’s speech received considerable attention: "We must be careful with whom we engage and with whom we negotiate and speak."
Thus, based on the Supreme Leader’s interpretation of the matter, it can be inferred that the dichotomy of negotiation/no negotiation, or transaction/no transaction, has lost its relevance, and a new, realistic concept of "intelligent and cautious negotiation or transaction" has emerged. It is worth noting that this concept had been mentioned earlier by the Leader, but it was always met with broken promises from Western parties. Therefore, it becomes clear that, contrary to the views of hardliners, the official position of the system is not to block diplomacy and its tools.
The Islamic Republic of Iran, at its highest levels, adheres to all communication tools, including diplomacy, negotiation, and reciprocal transactions, and will make full use of them based on its national interests, considering the cost/benefit ratio and relying on rational understanding and past experiences. It goes without saying that what is crucial in this process is to avoid oversimplifications and naïve thinking, which have led to unfavorable and unproductive results in previous negotiation processes.
On the other hand, the concepts outlined in the Supreme Leader's words are also part of the fourteenth government's ideological framework and action plans. Now, the government can pursue diplomacy in light of the enlightening views of the Leader, carefully following his recommendations. The proximity, or even alignment, between the fourteenth government's foreign policy framework and the Leader's realistic and pragmatic interpretation of negotiation and transaction, is a "possibility" and an "effective capacity" for utilizing the principles and tools of diplomacy.
At the same time, such clear alignment can be seen as a clear example of political consensus at its highest level. This consensus not only limits the hardliners at both ends of the political spectrum in Iran but also has the potential to be a valuable asset for the government in laying the foundation for a new era in Iran's foreign policy.
Contrary to the expectations and interpretations of hardliners, the Supreme Leader's speech on the day of Eid al-Mab'ath was not only about rejecting negotiation, but it also likely went a step further, incorporating a more actionable and practical stage, namely "transaction." What is most important here is his repeated emphasis on using rational understanding, historical experiences, and calculating the cost/benefit ratio, and above all, not trusting the superficial smiles of Western parties. It must now be declared that Iran remains committed to diplomacy and will make intelligent and realistic use of all its capacities, especially the tools of negotiation and transaction, in its global interactions.
NOURNEWS