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 actual message.

 

Is this letter an opportunity to initiate diplomacy, or is it a warning of an imminent threat? Should Tehran respond to it or file it away in its archive of tense relations with Washington? More importantly, why was this message delivered through an unconventional channel like the UAE?

 

Trump has never adhered to traditional diplomatic norms. A self-proclaimed “deal-maker,” he views negotiations not as an equal dialogue but as a means to extract “greater concessions.”

 

He tore up the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA), calling it “the worst agreement in U.S. history,” while Europe, China, and Russia still upheld it.
Now, the same man who once tweeted threats of assassination against an Iranian general—only to order the strike that same day—approaches Tehran with a letter delivered via the UAE.

 

Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a prominent Emirati analyst, claimed that this letter contained threats of a “massive military operation” if Tehran refused to negotiate a new agreement.

 

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov revealed that Trump’s letter set Iran’s withdrawal of support for resistance groups as a precondition for talks.

 

But the fundamental question remains: Is such a letter truly an invitation to negotiation, or is it just another component of Washington’s “maximum pressure” strategy?

 

Iran's Supreme Leader in meeting with Students / WANA News Agency

Iran’s Supreme Leader: Trump’s Call for Talks Is a Global Deception

WANA (Mar 12) – The Supreme Leader of Iran stated: “When the U.S. President says, ‘We are ready to negotiate with Iran’ and calls for talks, it is a deception aimed at misleading global public opinion.”   This afternoon, Wednesday, Ayatollah Khamenei, in a meeting with a group of students and members of student organizations […]

Read More...

 

The UAE as an Intermediary: A Calculated Choice or Distrust in Official Channels?

 

Letter-based diplomacy, especially between two countries lacking formal diplomatic relations, is not unprecedented. However, the fact that Trump—leader of a country with well-established diplomatic institutions—chose to entrust the UAE with delivering his message has puzzled analysts.

 

Tehran University professor Ebrahim Motaghi describes this move as a “diplomatic failure” for Washington, arguing that the U.S. could have used official channels like the Swiss Embassy or Iran’s UN representation in New York.

 

But if we view the UAE not merely as an intermediary but as an actor with its own interests, our analysis shifts. The UAE is actively seeking to cement its role as a key regional player—strengthening ties with the U.S., normalizing relations with Israel, and positioning itself as a mediator in regional conflicts.

 

Delivering this letter could reinforce its status as a regional soft power, while securing further economic and military advantages from Washington, including advanced weaponry like F-35 fighter jets.

 

Some behind-the-scenes analyses suggest that the letter’s delivery was not an effort for peace but part of a larger geopolitical transaction—one in which the UAE seeks U.S. security guarantees and expanded access to cutting-edge military technology.

Why Did Tehran Shift the Ball Back to Washington?

 

“The letter received its response before being opened.” This phrase perfectly encapsulates Iran’s reaction to Trump’s message. A trilateral meeting with Russia and China, a swift statement from Iran’s Supreme Leader even before the letter arrived, and repeated emphasis on the “damaging experience” of the JCPOA—all served as unofficial yet clear responses.

 

Iran’s leader stated: “We negotiated for years; this very person (Trump) tore up the signed agreement… When we know he won’t honor any deal, why negotiate at all?”

 

In essence, Iran has made it clear that it will not enter negotiations again without tangible guarantees and a fundamental shift in Washington’s behavior. It refuses to be drawn into another cycle of negotiations that lead only to “more sanctions, more threats, and more insults”—a phrase often used by analysts aligned with Tehran’s leadership to describe the consequences of the JCPOA.

 

Iran’s current strategy is one of “active silence”—neither directly responding to the letter nor completely closing the door to diplomacy. Instead, Tehran has shifted the burden onto Washington while simultaneously strengthening its strategic ties with the East.

Russia, China, and Iran are forging a new geopolitical order—through joint military exercises, energy and defense collaborations, and coordinated policies in multilateral organizations like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

 

If we examine Iran-U.S. relations historically, the recurring pattern of pressure followed by negotiations is evident. But today, the weight of China and Russia has altered the equation.

 

Tehran is no longer isolated. Moscow seeks a new balance of power in the Middle East, while Beijing aims to secure its energy routes and global trade corridors.

 

Trump’s letter may have outwardly appeared diplomatic, but its content and delivery resembled the last desperate move of a losing gambler—one still chasing absolute victory rather than an equitable agreement.

 

Without genuine changes in U.S. behavior, Iran sees no reason to trust negotiations that, in the past, have led only to more sanctions and more threats.