WANA (Mar 29) – Previous U.S. presidents had also written letters to Iran’s Supreme Leader, yet Tehran showed little interest in responding. If any replies were ever given, neither Iranians nor American citizens were made aware of them.

 

Trump’s first letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader, delivered during his first term via Japan’s Prime Minister, was returned. Ayatollah Khamenei told the Japanese Prime Minister at the time, “I do not consider Trump worthy of even exchanging messages.”

 

Shinzo Abe’s 2019 meeting with the Leader of the Islamic Revolution

An Account of Shinzo Abe’s Visit to Tehran in 2019 and Trump’s Message

WANA (Mar 01) – The political advisor to Iran’s Supreme Leader shared an account of the visit of Japan’s former Prime Minister to Iran and his meeting with Ayatollah Khamenei.   Ali Shamkhani, in a post on his social media account on X, shared a photo of Shinzo Abe’s 2019 meeting with the Leader of […]

Read More...

 

From statements made by Iranian officials, it can be inferred that Trump’s letter was a mix of threats and a request to find a solution that would be acceptable to the U.S.

 

Like all media outlets, WANA News Agency does not have details on Iran’s response. However, based on the Supreme Leader’s recent speeches and statements by Iran’s foreign minister and military officials, it appears that Trump’s proposals in the letter were far from acceptable to Tehran.

 

Despite intense pressure from pro-Western factions within Iran to push the government into accepting Trump’s proposals without preconditions, Iran responded strategically. After weeks of deliberation—officially citing the need for a comprehensive review of the letter—Tehran ultimately sent its response to Trump via Oman just two days ago.

 

A key question now arises: why was Iran’s response not delivered through the UAE, which originally brought Trump’s letter? Several strategic considerations may explain this decision:

 

1. Avoiding Playing on the Opponent’s Turf

The U.S. had set up its diplomatic channel through the UAE, a country that has territorial disputes with Iran over the three islands and has joined the Abraham Accords. By using Oman instead— a nation with proven goodwill toward Iran and not under U.S. influence—Tehran shifted the playing field in its favor.

 

2. Raising the Level of Diplomatic Engagement

The initial messenger was of a lower diplomatic rank, but Iran elevated the exchange by responding through Oman’s Sultan, ensuring a higher-level engagement.

 

3. Rejecting Trump’s Negotiation Strategy

Trump had pushed for direct negotiations—his preferred approach. However, Iran instead initiated indirect talks, shaping the process according to its own strategy.

4. Shifting the Balance in Negotiations

While negotiations themselves are not inherently the priority, the fact that the U.S. accepted indirect talks suggests a step back from its previous stance of dictating terms. Washington’s willingness to negotiate indirectly indicates that substance, rather than format, is now its main concern.

 

The core issue in these negotiations is securing mutual U.S.-Iran interests on contested matters. If this is Trump’s true priority, then the format of the talks becomes secondary.

 

5. A Tactical and Innovative Move

For the first time, Iran has officially responded to a U.S. president’s letter addressed to its Supreme Leader. If American policymakers had assumed that Iran’s leadership, based on past precedent, would ignore the letter—allowing Trump to stage a symbolic diplomatic play—Tehran disrupted that expectation.

 

If the response indeed came directly from the Supreme Leader, it would mark a significant shift. However, it is more likely that Iran’s president sent the reply on behalf of the leadership.

 

6. The Cost of Leaving the JCPOA

Trump must recognize that withdrawing from the JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal) comes with consequences. International relations are not based on the whims of individuals who can start or abandon agreements at will.

 

The U.S. must offer clear, step-by-step concessions in negotiations, and any new agreements should follow the framework of the JCPOA rather than an entirely new process dictated by Washington.

 

In conclusion, Iran’s handling of this situation appears to have been a calculated and effective strategy. If Trump’s true intention is to reach a new agreement that serves both sides’ interests, then Iran’s approach has successfully shifted the dynamics in its favor.

Trump’s Letter to Iran: Gesture or Game?

WANA (Mar 15) – A letter from Washington, bearing the stamp of the UAE, and destined for Tehran—three points of a triangle that have captured the attention of international observers. Donald Trump, the President of the United States, decided to send a letter to Iran. However, the contradictory narratives about its content have overshadowed the […]

Read More...