Trump’s fastest way to destroy the opportunity to agree with Iran

In a note in the US media, the success or failure of Tehran-Washington’s indirect negotiations will be the best assessment indicator of whether President Donald Trump’s second government can consolidate US foreign policy by achieving a pragmatic agreement.

From Ukraine to Gaza and Saudi Arabia, we have witnessed White House active communication channels, interaction with competitors, propaganda of weapons sales and investment contracts, the most controversial of which has been its interaction with Iran. In his first government, Trump was influenced by extremist consultants who took a “maximum pressure” approach to Iran. But this time, the US president has an opportunity to achieve a pragmatic agreement that, while restricting Iran’s nuclear ambitions, will reduce regional tensions.

According to the report, the success or failure of the negotiations with Iran will be the best indicator of whether the government can go ahead of a path that has shown its desire to consolidate US foreign policy foundations. In his first administration, Trump’s advisers have repeatedly told him that if the pressure on Tehran increased enough, he would be able to achieve a “better agreement” than the nuclear deal in the Barack Obama government, which was mistaken. This approach led Iran to be unjustified, so that he did not want to negotiate throughout his first government.

The magazine, claiming that Iran’s position has weakened the diplomatic opportunity, given the recent regional developments, including the fall of the Basharas government in Syria and the clashes between the Zionist regime with Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon. There is now no better opportunity to turn pressure into diplomatic results for the US president.

Another part of this is: The government’s decision to turn to diplomacy is one of the important parts of its efforts to consolidate US foreign policy and focus the US military’s focus on the Indian-regional region. The release of the US military from the Middle East concerns is a clear priority. Government officials’ statements in recent months have been in line with this approach. Trump has also shown the greatest resistance to Israeli military attack against Iran and its proxy forces. The US Department of Defense has recently published a strategic instruction that explicitly orders the military to focus on domestic security and the Indian-regional region, while also considering other threats.

In this regard, Iran is a decisive test that will show whether the government is serious about strategic prioritization. The US presidents have been trying to change Asia since the time of Obama, though not successful, but this time, Trump’s insight that trade and diplomatic interaction with Iran may be more efficient than isolating and military attacks is whether it will be agreed or negotiated because of their expectations.

Places of insistence on zero enrichment

Following this, pointing out that the issue of enrichment for this red line is one of the challenges of Tehran-Washington negotiations, it was suggested to reduce disputes: Iran will certainly have to assign a new uranium enriched uranium under its high purity under its new and new. There are also other solutions, including stopping Iran’s internal enrichment and designing a nuclear consortium with the participation of neighboring countries. Reports indicate that the government has not yet made a decision in its internal discussions. The draft, on a suggestion, a senior US negotiating team, has shown that the government is considering these strategies, but the president has recently emphasized “zero enrichment” on social media.

Farren Polisi wrote about the consequences of US insistence on zero enrichment in Iran: The complete ban on enrichment within Iran is perhaps the fastest way to ensure that no agreement is reached. Tehran has repeatedly emphasized that this issue is red line in any agreement. The more worrying thing is that this position is in fact the insistence of those who encouraged Trump to withdraw from the nuclear deal in year 6. It is more and more clear that in the view of these foreign policy extremists, no agreement with Iran is appropriate.

According to the magazine, “an agreement that includes verification and supervision and defines strict standards for Iran’s domestic nuclear capabilities is much better than other options.”

“This approach is undoubtedly better than the military attacks that may have only a few years later revived Iran’s nuclear ambitions, with the danger of a regional conflict with Iran and its allies that US troops in the region are likely to be the main target,” Farren Polisi wrote. If it is the president who eventually led to the US addiction to intervening in the Middle East, Iran’s bombing is the worst place that can start. But on the other hand, if it is able to achieve a comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran, the United States may eventually be able to start the backward work of Asia.

Iran and the United States have so far held five rounds of indirect talks with Oman’s mediation in Muscat and Rome. Washington, which made contradictory statements about the way Iran’s nuclear program restricts, has recently made a written proposal on a possible agreement on its nuclear program. Iranian officials have said they are preparing a proper response to the letter.

An Iranian source in an interview with Rashatodi Network said: “Iran considers the written cases of America far from something that can be considered a fair and realistic basis for a possible component.” The Iranians were surprised to see such a fantasy text that is so far from reality.

The end of the message