Nournews: The delivery of Donald Trump's letter to the leader of the Islamic Revolution of Iran through the UAE took place while Washington simultaneously imposed widespread sanctions on Iran. These sanctions, which targeted the oil minister, companies related to the energy industry, and Iranian oil tankers, were immediately enforced after the letter was delivered. This simultaneity not only demonstrated a stark contradiction in U.S. policy but also clearly revealed Washington's true objective behind sending this letter: creating a diplomatic gesture for negotiations, while the core policy remains based on pressure and coercion.
In the international system, when a state is genuinely seeking negotiation, it at least avoids actions that block the path to dialogue. However, in this case, the U.S. government did not even wait for Iran's reaction to the letter and imposed new sanctions before receiving any response. This indicates that the letter was merely a psychological tool to influence the internal atmosphere in Iran and global public opinion, rather than a real step toward opening a diplomatic path. If Washington's goal was dialogue and understanding, it would have logically refrained from intensifying pressures until receiving a response.
Negotiation strategy in U.S. foreign policy
The negotiation strategy in U.S. policy is not seen as a tool for resolving conflicts, but rather as a tactic to enhance pressure. Past experiences, including U.S. negotiations with North Korea, Libya, and even the negotiations that led to the nuclear agreement with Iran, have all shown that Washington has always used negotiation as a means to alter the behavior of the other party within the framework of its own interests.
In negotiations between the U.S. and North Korea in the 1990s, the United States committed to providing economic and technological aid in exchange for halting Pyongyang 's nuclear program. However, these commitments were never fulfilled, and eventually, the U.S. withdrew from the agreement. In Libya, the U.S. initially asked Gaddafi to halt his nuclear program, and after he complied, several years later, they used military action to overthrow his regime. These experiences demonstrate that in the U.S. approach, negotiations are not aimed at creating lasting agreements, but at changing circumstances in favor of Washington.
In the case of Iran, the U.S. has used negotiations as a tool to increase pressure at various times. In the case of the nuclear deal, after the agreement was signed, the U.S. not only failed to uphold its commitments to lift sanctions but eventually withdrew from the deal and adopted a maximum pressure policy. In this context, Trump's new letter, while new sanctions are imposed simultaneously, is part of the same longstanding U.S. strategy of imposing its conditions through apparent negotiations and actual pressure.
Iran’s strategy in dealing with U.S.'s double standards
Considering these realities, any response from Iran to this letter should be framed by a clear understanding of Washington's strategy and protecting national interests. The U.S. policy is based on increasing hostility and pressure, and any concession in this situation will not only fail to reduce pressures but will encourage the U.S. to apply more pressure.
Over the years, Iran has shown that in the face of maximum pressure, it will not retreat, but will instead pursue its progress with appropriate strategies. The new sanctions imposed by the U.S., which coincided with Trump's letter, show that Washington's main objective is to destroy Iran's economic capability and impose its desired conditions in various areas. However, Iran, relying on its internal capabilities and cooperation with its international partners, has managed to thwart this path and has been able to manage the economic pressures.
Negotiation makes sense when both parties enter it with good faith and the goal is to achieve a balanced and sustainable agreement. However, historical experience has shown that negotiating with the U.S. has always been accompanied by deceptive tactics, parallel pressures, and efforts to impose its will. Therefore, any decision regarding engagement with the U.S. must be based on these realities and framed in a way that guarantees national interests, not as a tool to advance Washington's policies.
NOURNEWS