Why did Iran propose indirect negotiations with the United States?

According to Ashura News, quoted by Tasnim, on Thursday, April 27, Iranian Foreign Minister Seyyed Abbas Araqchi announced that US President Donald Trump's response letter had been transmitted via Oman and emphasized: "This official response includes a letter in which our points of view regarding the current situation and Mr. Trump's letter have been fully explained and conveyed to the other party."

The Foreign Minister of our country also emphasized that Iran's policy continues to be based on not negotiating directly under conditions of maximum pressure and military threats, but indirect negotiations, as they have existed in the past, can continue.

Araqchi's statements showed that Iran is ready to negotiate under certain conditions, and there is an analysis that Iran has suggested the option of indirect negotiations in its response to the US President.

The next issue is Iran's hesitation regarding the contradictory statements of the US, considering the country's past behavior towards Iran. The hostile policies of the United States in the past decades against Iran, its unilateral and illegal sanctions, its attempts to impose economic pressure, and most importantly, the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the JCPOA and Europe's inaction towards its commitments, have caused Iran to distrust the possibility of any direct agreement, and for this reason, without building trust and relieving pressure on Iran, it is impossible to trust the other side.

In this regard, our country's Foreign Minister also stated in an interview with Tasnim that the letter from the American side contained both a threat and received a corresponding response, and that it had opened a window for diplomacy, stating: "We have not closed any avenue for diplomacy and will not close it. Of course, we doubt the intentions of the other side and we have heard contradictory statements from them."

Araqchi continued: "All of this makes us examine every request carefully and with skepticism, and we view every window that opens for diplomacy with distrust, but at the same time, if there are opportunities, we will use them."

Indirect negotiations allow for the assessment of the other party

Now the question arises; why does Iran talk about indirect negotiations and what is Tehran's goal in expressing this approach?

In this regard, Hamidreza Asefi, former spokesman for the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in an interview with Tasnim regarding the reasons and factors that have made Iran interested in indirect negotiations with the United States, noted: The American ruling party, especially Trump himself, has entered into a complex game and psychological warfare and has done several things; first, they have given contradictory and numerous messages from different people and created an atmosphere in such a way that either direct negotiations should be held or there will be war, this was the atmosphere they created, they also created psychological warfare in such a way that ambiguity would be created within the country and if they could, they would create a bipolarity, meaning those in favor of negotiations and those against negotiations in the country.

He added: They continued to try to insinuate that the Islamic Republic was at a weak point, then they tried to erase the people's historical memory, that is, to move in such a way that people no longer pay attention to the events that occurred during Trump's first term or forget about them, this was a complicated game they were playing.

Asefi continued: Iran needed to both take the weapon from the other side so that the dilemma of negotiation or negation of negotiation would not be formed, and to put another choice on the table that is neither war nor direct negotiation, but something intermediate, and that is indirect negotiations. In response to the actions they took, the Islamic Republic launched this initiative: "We will not negotiate directly, but we will not run away from negotiations and we see it in the form of indirect negotiations."

Stating that this was a good initiative and would take the other side's excuse away, he emphasized: "If the goal is for the parties to sit down and convey their positions to each other to see how many there are, it can be done through indirect negotiations, and in this indirect negotiation, we have the opportunity to evaluate the other side to see whether it is truly seeking to resolve the issue or whether it is arrogantly and top-down in its spirit. This is what can be understood from the response of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the other side. We must wait and see the other side's response."

If it comes to conflict, the US and the region are not optimistic

This Iranian diplomat continued, in response to the question of whether there is a possibility of military conflict and tension from the US against Iran, he said: "Part of this is psychological warfare and negative signals to intimidate the other side or to put it in a place where it has no choice but to do what the Americans want, but it is always necessary to take the initiative when the situation becomes so complicated, do not let the other side make the situation more complicated than it already is with a mistake or blunder."

He added: "Of course, the Islamic Republic has shown that it is neither weak nor powerless in the face of war and conflict; rather, it will respond to any action with strength, and there is no doubt about that."

Asefi clarified: "We are not incapable of responding, and if it comes to that, neither America nor the region will be optimistic, and in the end, the losers will be the Americans and their allies, and there is no doubt about that, but considering that the condition of reason is to prevent such incidents as much as possible."

The possibility of America accepting indirect negotiations is not ruled out

He continued, in response to the question of whether it is possible for America to respond positively to Iran's offer of indirect negotiations, saying: I see a high probability of this and it is not ruled out. If America really shows wisdom and tact, they should accept, we should wait, and I see a greater probability of accepting than not accepting, although in the world of politics anything can happen and nothing is impossible, but I see a greater probability of accepting, in America it is Trump who decides and the rest are in charge, we should wait to see how Trump reacts in the next few days.

The former spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also stated about the reason for the official announcement of Iran's response to the US letter: Every situation has its requirements, you do not make decisions in the past, both time and developments move and the conditions become different, that you think that it is good in politics to always say the same thing, this is not a positive point, you do not make decisions in a vacuum, previously the situation was such that it was necessary to plan in this way, but now, considering the existing conditions, it has been designed in this way, he noted: This shows the wisdom and prudence of the Islamic Republic