Negotiation is not under the maximum pressure and a dignified and wise threat/ We are committed to finding a diplomatic solution to lifting sanctions

According to RCO News Agency, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran has published a leaf stateme on the hostile actions of the new US governme, as follows:

The US preside issued an order to revive a failed policy called “maximum pressure” against the Iranian nation on February 7, 2008, signing a “National Security Presideial” note.

The US governme claims to revive maximum pressure, but the maximum pressure had never stopped today to revive the former US governme not halt even one of the sanctions imposed in the past, and has added hundreds of sanctions to past sanctions.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has shown that it responds and responds with maximum resistance and strongly believes that no nation should be subject to unjust pressure and illegal sanctions.

American hypocritical approach

While signing the docume, the US preside spoke of his willingness to discuss and agree with Iran on the nuclear issue, with a docume revitalizing a policy called maximum pressure as the Honorable Preside of the Islamic Republic of Iran, making all possible conspiracies to confro Iran and iensify pressure on Iran. The Iranian people have put on the agenda.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has always supported diplomatic solutions to various issues, including the nuclear issue, and over the past two decades has proven its commitme to diplomacy and solutions.

At the same time, the historical background evokes that the Iranian nation will never accept the negotiation under pressure and that unilateral conditions, iimidation and threat to the Islamic Republic have and will not be held accouable.

Coinciding with the order of iensifying pressure on the Iranian nation and expressing a will to dialogue and agreeme only reflects the coinuation of the hypocritical approach that has long been on the agenda of US governmes towards Iran.

Washington’s insistence on this dual approach not only helps solve issues but also adds to the depth of mistrust of American ieions and policies.

US history

The US governme expresses a tendency to discuss its obligations, especially on the UN Security Council, in order to deal with Iran.

Today, the preside speaks of the conversation and transaction that he himself unilaterally ordered the United States to exit and put the most severe pressure on the Iranian nation. Its widespread nuclear obligations were.

Even before that, the failure to fully fully fulfill the US obligations had preveed the Islamic Republic of Iran completely benefit from the benefits and benefits of lifting sanctions as it was aicipated.

With all these ierpretations, Iran coinued to fully fulfill its obligations within its long -standing commitme to diplomacy for a year after the US withdrawal, and ultimately only within the framework of the rights of the Brigham and in an attempt to revive diplomacy, a set of compensation steps. He removed the nuclear area and stopped the implemeation of the actions in the Brigham.

Over the past four years, despite the iensive conversations to revive the Brajam Washington, despite the verbal desire to return to the agreeme, he has never refused to return to its obligations and lift sanctions against the Iranian nation, and every time it is preveed from preveing the pretext. It turned out that the negotiations for the revival of the Brjam would achieve the final result.

In fact, the experience of the Brajam agreeme can be described as a mirror of all the dual American behavior towards Iran.

The position of the Islamic Republic of Iran on today’s dual approach is American derived from this historical experience.

History of US Historical Back on Iran

The US governme’s behavioral history towards the Iranian governme and the great nation of Iran is aware of the distrust of the coinuation of arrogance, threat and iimidation, repeated iernal ierveions, the launch of national resources and wealth under various headings, deprived the Iranian nation of conveional commercial opportunities. The way sanctions, imposing war, resorting to all kinds of terrorism, especially economic terrorism, are adveurous and many other inhumane and cruel issues.

These measures are not compatible with any human criteria as well as iernational law and regulations. The implemeation of the coup against the Iranian legal governme on August 7, the blocking of all Iranian assets in the early days of the Islamic Revolution, security and logistical support for Saddam’s Ba’athist regime during the eight -year imposed war, attacking oil platforms, attacking Iranian passenger plane The name of the Mojahedin from the list of terrorist groups, iimidation and extradition of the Iranians through their arrest and extradition, withdrawal from the nuclear deal, the head of the national hero of the martyr Sardar Sardar Sardar Sardar Sardar Sardar, the imposition of overseas sanctions, and the widespread targeting of Iranian citizens. The way these sanctions and involveme in the assassination of Iran’s nuclear scieists through supporting the Zionist regime are only part of these hostile actions and behaviors.

According to history, today’s situation in the US -Iran relations is the result of a set of hostile actions that Washington has pursued for nearly a ceury against the Iranian nation.

Washington cannot change historical facts by accusing Iran and represeing Iran responsible.

US history of supporting terrorism and instability in the region

The United States, while accusing the Islamic Republic of Iran of supporting terrorism, is the largest victim of terrorism in the world, and no coury has fought as much as the Iranian nation and its armed forces against the emergence of this ominous phenomenon in the West Asian region.

Iran has sacrificed many dear lives to support and defend the nations of the region against viole and ruthless terrorism, and has always prioritized peace and peace in the region.

On the other hand, within the coury, various terrorist groups created by the US and some other couries have killed more than 6,000 innoce people.

The United States, despite its claim to fight terrorism, has actually been a sponsor, a sponsor, and a cause of terrorism and instability in the West Asian region, as today’s US preside has repeatedly acknowledged US campaigns in the region on the pretext of fighting against terrorism in Iraq and in Iraq. Afghanistan has had nothing but instability and growth of terrorist groups.

The United States, not in the plaiiff’s position, but in the accused position, must answer the question of who has been the cause of terrorist groups and the funding and weapons of dangerous groups such as al -Qaeda ISIS and al -Nusra in the past decades? The United States has shown that terrorist groups are a tool to advance their goals and policies against couries, including in the region.

The label of support for terrorism on the support of the Iranian nation’s support for the resistance groups and the Muslim nations of the region who fight for the freedom of their land and human dignity against a usurped occupation regime does not change reality.

Charming the Islamic Republic of Iran is an inefficie effort to deprive the Zionist regime and to escape the burden of its responsibility in the comprehensive and absolute support of its regime’s crimes.

US human rights claims

The United States has accused the Islamic Republic of human rights, which itself has not only supported the genocide and war crimes of the Zionist regime in Gaza but also supported these actions, and now the destruction of the Zionist regime’s criminal attacks is also proclaimed to migrate to The Palestinians have put their lands and land usurages.

The claim of supporting the Iranian people and human rights is while Washington has been targeting the Iranian nation’s economy and welfare directly for many years, referring to economic pressure on the Iranian nation as a first round of campaign.

It is not rejected that the US governme was trying to iensify economic pressure on the Iranian nation, as the Iranian people were struggling with the epidemic of Corona.

According to iernational reports, US sanctions have targeted not only the economy but the fundameal right of Iranian life so that many lives have been lost due to restrictions on cruel sanctions.

With such a background, the United States cannot place itself in the position of a claima in human rights.

It is not clear to anyone that Washington has nothing to do with the iensity of the Human Rights claims except to exacerbate the pressure on the same nation that is concerned about, and this is another sign of the US hypocritical approach to Iran.

Global Disability Politics

While the United States has described itself as a supporter of the so -called law -orieed system and has always spoken of the need for adherence to iernational law, it has stepped down at various times, corary to iernational rules and to promote instability worldwide.

Although the United States has always hidden its violations of iernational laws and rules under seemingly justified literature and slogans such as human rights and the fight against terrorism, today the coury has explicitly turned to imperialist and colonial literature by abandoning these complimes. The usurper of other lands in Europe and West Asia and in Latin America does not hide.

In fact, today the United States has become the biggest factor in the rejection of iernational principles and norms, including respect for territorial iegrity and national sovereigy than ever.

The US approach to the Islamic Republic of Iran is also not separate from this colonial meality and policy.

Rationality, ielligence and dignity

The supreme leader of the revolution, relying on the historical experience and records of the US governme’s performance, described negotiating with the United States in today’s situation as “rationality, ielligence and dignity”. Iran has never had a dialogue and has left the negotiating table, but is the negotiation under the maximum pressure and a dignified and wise threat?

It should be remembered that it was America that was negotiated with a multilateral docume, leaving the negotiating table, and now, claiming to be ready to negotiate the same policy by resorting to the inefficie approach of maximum pressure.

In the same coext, the Islamic Republic of Iran, while adhering to the three principles of “dignity, wisdom and expediency” in its foreign policy, believes that negotiations with an American who today explicitly puts a copy of all -out pressure on the Iranian nation and explicitly put Iran to Iran. Military action threatens, it will not serve Iran’s national ierests.

In the coext of its religious and strategic considerations, the Islamic Republic of Iran has never been on the agenda of the construction of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, and the fatwa of the supreme leader in this regard is a certain certificate of commitme.

The United States, as the sole use of nuclear weapons in history, cannot and should not turn the nuclear issue io an excuse to oppose the Iranian nation.

Iran is still committed to finding a diplomatic solution to the rights of the Iranian nation and lifting sanctions and will coinue to consult with the releva parties, while utilizing all elemes of its national power to respond and deal with threats.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a propulsion of peace in the region and the world and does not seek pressure and threat to any party, but if one wishes to threaten Iran, it will be responded to it.

The Islamic Republic of Iran will not doubt in response to any attack on national security and will respond to any action against Iran.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs will take steps from the position of power to comply with the statemes and recommendations of the supreme leader with open eyes and with a thorough understanding of the nature of the other parties in the path of dignified diplomacy aimed at securing the ierests of the great Iranian nation.

The end of the message