Nournews: Ali Shamkhani, the political advisor to the Leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolution and the person in charge of Iran’s nuclear dossier, said, “What matters is that negotiations must be conducted at the right time and under the right conditions, from a position of power, with the aim of securing Iran’s national interests—not as a way of solving domestic problems through temporary foreign solutions.”
In an interview with Ensafnews, Shamkhani answered questions about negotiations:
Ensafnews: Donald Trump, the U.S. President, recently announced he is ready to meet with Iran’s president. Can these statements be perceived as a sign of America’s readiness to negotiate with Iran?
Shamkhani: Such statements come at a time when the White House simultaneously issues a detailed executive order to intensify economic pressures against Iran. This contradiction shows that the goal is not solving the issue but continuing the same “Maximum Pressure” policy under the guise of diplomacy. In fact, this behavior cannot be considered a sign of real readiness for negotiation but must be assessed as part of the same traditional policy of the U.S. toward Iran—a policy designed to exert pressure and create critical conditions, only to then propose negotiations from a position of power.
E.N.: So, from your perspective, negotiations cannot be an effective way of solving problems under these conditions?
Shamkhani: Generally, three fundamental questions arise in this context. First, is negotiation possible under the current circumstances? Experience has shown that negotiations only make sense when both parties have the required will and capacity to achieve a sustainable agreement that secures both sides’ interests. While the U.S. increases economic pressure and proposes negotiations at the same time, the message is clear: Negotiation, in their mind, is not a balanced diplomatic process but a tool to impose their political will.
The second question is whether any negotiation necessarily leads to an agreement. The answer is clear: No. The history of international relations is filled with examples of long-term negotiations that ended with inconclusive or fragile agreements that had no value. A recent example is the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which was even backed by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, but the U.S. betrayed it by withdrawing, and Europe failed to fulfill its obligations through inaction. Now, in the last year of the JCPOA, they are proposing threats such as activating the “Snapback Mechanism” and similar issues.
The third fundamental question is that, assuming an agreement is reached and both parties remain committed to it, will the economic problems—our main goal for negotiations—be completely resolved? I have repeatedly said that the main factor in improving economic conditions is national policies and proper and effective governance in this field. It is a domestic issue.
Although foreign policy and economic relations with other countries without restrictions play a role in economic improvement, the required condition for the economy’s improvement is not merely tied to foreign policy but requires structural reforms and enhanced economic governance. Even countries that had numerous and detailed agreements with the world’s economic powers, while neglecting their national economic infrastructures, still face economic crises. Therefore, the perception that negotiations will directly and absolutely solve economic problems is inconsistent with reality.
E.N.: So, in your view, the keywords “negotiation,” “agreement,” and “solving economic problems,” as a connected chain, cannot be a proper proposition to address economic disorders?
Shamkhani: As I explained, the required condition for economic improvement in the country is the implementation of proper economic governance. Of course, foreign relations can be influential in this regard as a sufficient condition, but saying that “negotiation means agreement, and agreement means solving economic problems” is an unreal and simplistic perception of the country’s problems.
Past experience has shown that even if an agreement is reached, if economic infrastructures are not reformed, the problems will persist. Therefore, in the first place, all structures in the country must make efforts to improve and reform the country’s economic infrastructures so that, if one day conditions are prepared for negotiations, the negotiation will be from a position of power and domestic capabilities, not from urgency.
E.N.: For years, we have faced two extreme views regarding foreign relations. One end of the spectrum calls the opponents of negotiation “profiteers of sanctions,” while the other end calls the proponents of negotiation “lackeys of imperialism and traitors.” What is the effect of such polarization on the decision-making environment?
Shamkhani: Unfortunately, such extreme views distort the realistic path of analysis. Major national issues cannot be analyzed within the binary frameworks of “opponents/proponents of negotiations” or “profiteers/appeasers.”
What matters is that negotiations must be conducted at the right and proper time and under the right conditions, from a position of power, and with the aim of securing the country’s national interests—not as a temporary solution to remove domestic problems.
The fundamental resolution lies in focusing on the enhancement of domestic fundamentals, reforming economic structures, and reducing reliance on foreign variables.
If these actions are conducted, and if conditions are met for negotiations, our country will enter this field with authority. Otherwise, pinning hope on negotiations is merely a waste of time and getting trapped in a mirage, which, the closer we get to it, the clearer it becomes that it is nothing but an illusion.
E.N.: Regarding your responsibility over Iran’s nuclear dossier and the centrality of the subject in any negotiation with Western parties, how do you see the outlook of negotiations?
Shamkhani: I prefer to use “sanction-removal dossier” instead of “nuclear dossier.” We have negotiated on nuclear issues for years and reached the JCPOA. According to reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran remained committed to all its obligations in the nuclear field one year after the U.S. withdrew from the JCPOA. However, the Western parties refused to comply with their commitments. Therefore, the non-compliant side is the West, which must lift sanctions. So, in case conditions for negotiations are prepared, Iran’s goal for any probable talks will be the lifting of sanctions and forcing the other party to remain committed to its obligations.
E.N.: So, you believe any negotiation must focus on lifting sanctions?
Shamkhani: We have never left the negotiation table. But when the president of a country, who has illegally withdrawn from the JCPOA, imposed unilateral sanctions against Iran by violating all his obligations, and activated all his capacity to coerce other countries into following his unilateral sanctions, talks about negotiation, which sensible person will believe his good faith?
Trump’s behavior is like someone who has placed their hand on the trigger of a machine gun, loaded and ready to shoot, while inviting you to dialogue and interaction with a smile. Can one trust him with such a negative history and this bully-like behavior?
According to Ensafnews, we have negotiated with 1+5 and 1+4 through various methods and have never backed down from any of our commitments. Currently, we are still having discussions with the Europeans. However, I do not see the outlook of the sanctions removal file moving forward, given the political behavior and greed of the Western parties, unless the approach of the other side becomes logical, respectful, and constructive.
NOURNEWS