US-Iranian Negotiations

Today marks the third round of US-Iranian negotiations, following two rounds of indirect talks. The first took place in the Omani capital, Muscat, on February 6th, and the second in Geneva, Switzerland, on February 17th, at the Omani Embassy, with the mediation, presence, and participation of the Omani Foreign Minister, Al Busaidi. Today's third round takes place amidst a charged atmosphere of tension, escalation, and an unprecedented American military buildup in terms of its strength and details, including a large fleet comprising a nuclear submarine, warships, 13 destroyers, two aircraft carriers (Lincoln and Ford), electronic warfare equipment, and ready mobile forces of no less than thirty thousand soldiers. This buildup surpasses what Washington did in its war on Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime on March 19, 2003. In contrast, Iran has made prior preparations to receive the first blow and is ready to retaliate, as stated in the Iranian message to the UN Secretary-General and members of the Security Council: "In the event of an attack against us, all bases, facilities, and assets of the hostile power in the region will be legitimate targets as part of an Iranian defensive response, and the United States will bear full and direct responsibility for the unforeseen consequences and the potential for them to become uncontrollable." The American saber-rattling is a scenario that carries many threats, suggesting that an American strike is inevitable, despite the slow but gradual progress of negotiations. The issues that ignited the confrontation between Washington and Tehran have been resolved one way or another. As President Trump himself stated at the "Peace Council" meeting in Washington on February 19th: "I have destroyed Iran's nuclear capability," and his emphasis on the option of "Iran not possessing nuclear weapons," threatening: "If an agreement is not reached, bad things will happen." Furthermore, Iran's allies have suffered severe attacks; the Syrian regime has been overthrown, political, security, and military leaders of Lebanese Hezbollah have been killed, and the Hamas movement has lost its offensive capabilities, suggesting, at least, that these parties lack the ability to harm or direct damage to the Israeli colony. Ballistic missiles, however, could still be a subject of negotiation. The factors of divergence or disagreement between Iran and the United States can be controlled, reduced, and negotiated, because Iran, for its part, has no interest in waging war, and therefore is willing to compromise. Iran has shown willingness to suspend uranium enrichment for 3 to 5 years in exchange for the lifting of US sanctions imposed on it. Iran seeks, and has an interest in, lifting financial and banking sanctions and stopping the ban on exporting its oil products, as its economic situation is difficult and has led to popular protests, which are the result of the siege, embargo, and sanctions imposed on it. The main problem is not the details, topics, and issues of the ongoing negotiations, but rather these are means, tools, or provocative pretexts used by the Israeli colony and its influence within American decision-making institutions, with a specific central goal of overthrowing the Iranian regime. Just as the goal was to incite against Iraq, which led to the fall and change of the regime, as also happened in Syria, the colony, along with a team from President Trump's administration, is working to overthrow the Iranian regime, which Tehran realizes and is working to undermine, and disarm its tools through negotiation and compromise. The possibilities will remain open, war or no war, as long as the extremist Israeli right and the hardline Jewish religious, along with the Trump administration team, are the decision-makers in steering the course towards prioritizing war on Iran, no matter how much flexibility and negotiating compromises it shows.