May 10, 2019, 7:50 PM
News Code: 83309485
0 Persons
US’ bewilderment between sanctions, request for talks

Tehran, May 10, IRNA - The US approach to Iran consists of divergent elements of sanctions and call for negotiations, which has kept the government in a vicious cycle of ill-fated policies.

In the juncture the president of the United States, Donald Trump, has devoted his time to impose sanctions against Iran, he claims to be willing to negotiate. Indeed, the Trump government, by taking steps in the way of imposing sanctions, has made it unbelievable its gesture and claim that is inclined to talk. The president of the United States at a press conference on Thursday night insisted on this dichotomy in the government's approach.

At the White House, he told reporters that if Iran contacted him, 'we are ready to talk with them'. In another part of his remarks, he accused former Secretary of State John Kerry of saying that 'they (Iran) must not contact'. Trump's request for negotiation and attack on John Kerry is not a new affair, and it has background.

Exit of JCPOA, restoration of previous sanctions and attachment of another list of them, including sanctioning the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps, lifting oil and nuclear exemptions, charging and sending Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf to intensify tension in the region, are among measure the United States has taken.

In addition, the US media are helping the US government by releasing news on secret meetings in Washington and the CIA office in Langley, Virginia, arouse a sense of ambiguity and even concern about the next step of Trump.

On the one hand, the Wall Street Journal wrote, senior officials from the US government's security team met to discuss what it called the security threats of Iran and North Korea, and on the other hand, the NBC News reported that The US National Security Adviser John Bolton, met with intelligence, diplomatic, and military senior advisers on Iran last week in an unusual move at the headquarters of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Even Trump at his press conference on referring to the deployment of Abraham Lincoln's strike group to the Middle East tried to make it sufficient that the United States had received 'very threatening information'. 'In my opinion, this can always be said,' he said, answering the question of whether there is a risk of military confrontation with the US forces in the region. “I do not want to say no. But I hope this does not happen. '

Trump is repeating the same pattern against Iran and even Venezuela that in his opinion led North Korea to negotiate with the United States. For many months, Pyongyang and Trump were subject to verbal tensions and military threats, but by immediate stop of this process, the two sides started negotiating; a negotiation that had not come about to a tangible result due to breaking the promises, pressures, and threats of the United States.

The United States has tried to resort to this trick vis-a-vis Venezuela about two years ago. Therefore, the US officials, who were not named in the media, claimed that Washington is considering a military option against Venezuela to dismiss Nicholas Maduro, the president of that country. However, sanctions and threats of military action not only did not result in the dismissal of Maduro, but also forced the military to maintain its integrity and support of the Venezuelan leader.

The policy of the US government towards Iran originated from three different channels that cannot find real cohesion in it. John Bolton, US National Security Adviser who, according to a report from the Washington Post, his anti-Venezuelan program has dismayed Trump, has called Abraham Lincoln's deployment to the Middle East as a signal to Iran. On the other hand, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said his country was not looking for a war. This is while Trump has not been transparent about the cause of Abraham Lincoln's deployment, and at the same time he has repeated his suggestion of negotiation.

The US invitation of Iran to sit at the negotiating table, irrespective of in what space it is raised, has an internal contradiction. The United States invites Iran to negotiate, which it has left by itself. About two weeks ago, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in an interview with the CBS network that 'There is a negotiation table still in place.' We did not leave that negotiating table. The United States was the party who left the negotiating table. The rest of the JCPOA members are still there. '

Iran's permanent representative to the UN, Majid Takht-e-Ravanchi also in an interview with the NBC network last night in response to Trump's remarks about the willingness to talk with Iran highlighted that the US president must first answer why he left the negotiating table. 'What guarantee is it that he (Trump) does not breaking his promises in the future talks between Iran and the United States?'

If threats and sanctions could lead to fruitful negotiations, the North Korean 6-th-minute talks or the North Korean leader's and Tramp leader's meetings in such an atmosphere would be tangible. Or Venezuela would not be in the current political crisis.

If threats and sanctions could lead to fruitful negotiations, the North Korean Six-party talks or the North Korean leader's and Trump’s meetings that were held in such an atmosphere would have produced tangible result or Venezuela would not have been in the current political crisis as it is now.

Therefore, it is imperative that the United States withdraws from threats and sanctions to show its real willingness to negotiate with Iran, and takes the approach of respecting international obligations and negotiating parties and back to JCPOA; a matter which among the parties to the agreement and both the international community and the American statesmen have a lot of supporters.


Follow us on Twitter @IrnaEnglish