Why Does Not Iran Negotiate with the United States?
WANA (Jan 15) – The topic of negotiations with the United States can be considered one of the oldest and most frequently discussed issues in the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This topic periodically becomes a heated discussion, as it has in recent times.
The most significant argument put forth by proponents of negotiations with the U.S. is that such talks could resolve the country’s issues, including economic challenges and the lifting of pressures. Conversely, the main claim of those opposing negotiations with the U.S. is that not only will these talks fail to solve the country’s problems, including economic ones, but they will also exacerbate issues and cause harm and loss.
In other words, supporters of negotiations view securing national interests as contingent upon engaging in talks, while opponents believe safeguarding national interests lies in avoiding negotiations. Therefore, the disagreement between proponents and opponents of negotiations is fundamental, critical, and deeply rooted.
In the following lines, I will briefly review some reasons why negotiations with the U.S., particularly under the current circumstances, are inconsistent with national interests.
Pezeshkian: Iran Has “Never” Planned the Assassination of Donald Trump
WANA (Jan 15) – In an exclusive interview with NBC News, Iran’s President, Massoud Pezeshkian, stated that Iran is fundamentally ready for dialogue with a potential second term of Donald Trump’s administration. He emphasized, however, the importance of honoring commitments made during such negotiations, adding that Iran has “never” planned the assassination of Donald Trump […]
Before delving into these reasons, it is worth noting that these arguments are independent of ideological or belief-based perspectives, even though ideology itself is a fundamentally significant and critical basis.
First, one of the fundamental principles of the Islamic Revolution and the Islamic system—an idea that any independent system would also endorse and affirm—is “neither oppressing others nor submitting to oppression.” This principle aligns perfectly with the foundational slogan and demand of the people at the outset of the Revolution: “independence.”
Based on this principle, it is not possible to engage with a system or a country whose foundation rests on arrogant and oppressive behavior, nor can negotiations—understood as fair exchanges—be conducted without submitting to oppression. Proving America’s greedy, oppressive, and arrogant nature does not require deep historical studies; it suffices to simply raise our heads, open our eyes, and observe America’s current claims, even against countries like Canada, the Panama Canal, and Greenland.
Second, the criterion of experience, especially in significant and critical matters, is an essential standard that rational individuals never disregard. Setting aside pre-revolution experiences and the experiences of other nations, our numerous encounters and negotiations with the United States after the victory of the Islamic Revolution provide us with no positive or promising outcomes.
From negotiations for the release of hostages at the U.S. embassy to the nuclear deal (JCPOA), all these experiences have only strengthened distrust toward the United States and proven that negotiations with it are either futile or harmful. As Hafez wisely said:
“Whoever tests what has already been tested will only face regret.”
Snapback Mechanism: A Comprehensive Overview
WANA (Jan 14) – October 2025 marks a crucial milestone in global diplomatic equations, as UN Resolution 2231 expires and all related sanctions on Iran are officially lifted. However, the European members of the JCPOA—Germany, France, and the United Kingdom—have already escalated tensions by threatening to activate the “Snapback” mechanism. During a Security Council […]
Third, one of the reasons cited by proponents of negotiations with the United States—though they may not openly acknowledge it but can be discerned with a little attention—is being intimidated by America’s dominance and perceived grandeur.
In the view of these individuals, the United States still holds hegemonic power and the ability to impose its will. However, it is clear and evident that today’s America is not the America of the 20th century, and its decline as a superpower is almost a consensus.
Numerous miscalculations in dealing with dear Iran, failures in attempts to overthrow the Islamic Republic, and the inability to achieve objectives in developments over the past two decades in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and multiple failed efforts to advance plans for strengthening the Israeli regime are among the factors that have seriously challenged America’s hegemony.
These developments have led strategic analysts worldwide to conclude that resisting and defeating the United States is indeed possible. Let me explicitly state here that negotiations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States would play a significant role in reviving America’s hegemony, and such an act would be a betrayal to the entire world.
Fourth, consider the condition of numerous countries that have close political ties with the United States or have aligned themselves with it. Despite such relations, their various problems, including economic issues, remain unresolved, and their people continue to grapple with poverty and economic hardships.
The Pahlavi-era Iran, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Afghanistan, and dozens of other smaller and larger countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and South America exemplify this reality. Therefore, the notion that shaking hands with the United States and smiling at them would instantly solve all problems is a fanciful and unrealistic illusion.
The costs of compromise and the price paid by countries, such as some Gulf states, to maintain a polished outward appearance may not be immediately apparent. However, their lack of political, economic, and cultural independence and their subservience to American policies are as clear as daylight. A glance at the U.S. military bases in these countries suffices to confirm this reality.
What is Trump’s 2025 Strategy Towards Iran?
WANA (Dec 23) – Following the helicopter incident involving Ebrahim Raisi, the late Iranian president, American analysts predicted his replacement by a more radical figure, potentially leading to internal fractures and diminished stability within the Islamic Republic. However, these forecasts quickly proved incorrect. The Islamic Republic demonstrated its resilience by restructuring its systems and achieving […]
Fifth, consider the circumstances we find ourselves in today. Following the events in Syria, the United States perceives itself as being in a superior position and views Iran as weakened. This coincides with the beginning of the presidency of an individual with characteristics like those of Trump!
Does expressing enthusiasm for negotiations under such conditions not reinforce the belief among American officials that they hold the upper hand? Would any U.S. president, let alone Trump—reportedly a businessman—not seek to extract concessions, or even resort to extortion, in such a situation? Under these circumstances, can the national interests of dear Iran truly be safeguarded?
With the perception America has of itself and of us today, and the eagerness some express for negotiations, would America be willing to grant Iran any meaningful or effective concessions to resolve its problems? Such an idea is pure delusion!
In conclusion, we are fully aware that confronting the United States undoubtedly entails costs. However, we also understand that negotiating with the United States, after forty-six years of dignified resistance—particularly under the current circumstances and given America’s propaganda capabilities—not only will fail to resolve even a fraction of our problems but will also squander all that we have achieved. It would represent the absolute and complete embodiment of sheer loss.
Therefore, we emphatically and loudly declare that negotiating with the United States does not serve our national interests. Whenever conditions arise in which our national interests can indeed be secured through negotiations, no rational and devoted individual would oppose it.
Iran and the US: From Military Threat to Nuclear Negotiation
WANA (Jan 02) – A former US diplomat, reflecting on the second Trump administration and recent developments in West Asia, wrote that military action against Iran would entail serious risks for the United States and is unlikely to succeed. Consequently, the best course of action for Washington is to engage in renewed negotiations with Tehran. […]
