Is 1404 a Fateful Year for the Islamic Republic?

It seems that Iran is ending the year 1403 in foreign policy with a letter from Donald Trump, the President of the United States, to Ayatollah Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic Republic. The letter arrived on a day when the leader had not yet opened it, and he reacted to it in front of a group of pro-government students, which was predictable for many. He stated that the invitation to negotiate is a 'deception of public opinion' and once again brought up Trump's confrontation with the JCPOA and the abandonment of the nuclear agreement during his first term. Iran in 1403 has experienced the crash of Ibrahim Raisi's helicopter, the election of the centrist government of Masoud Pezeshkian, the killing of Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of the extremist group Hamas in Tehran, confrontations between Iran and Israel, air pollution, energy shortages, staggering inflation, a 90,000-toman dollar, and many other significant events. With this letter and the reactions of Islamic Republic officials to it, Iran is heading into 1404. In this week's program, along with Mohammad-Sadegh Javadi-Hesar, a member of the Central Council of the National Trust Party in Iran, and Behnam Taleblu, a senior researcher at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in the U.S., we discussed the outlook for Iran in 1404 under the policies of Khamenei and Donald Trump. Javadi-Hesar believes that Khamenei agrees with 'desirable and fruitful negotiations that guarantee the implementation of agreements.' According to this reformist political activist, 'the leader of the Islamic Republic opposes this aspect of negotiations where Trump first threatens and then destroys the past, and contrary to these statements, I agree with the opposite.' The publisher of the banned newspaper 'Tose' believes that Khamenei is certainly 'aware and vigilant' enough to know how many Iranians are dissatisfied with the country's situation and how many of them resonate with critics and opponents of the Islamic Republic. However, his audience is 'if we want to be very unfair, twenty million who are still considered supporters of the Islamic Republic.' Behnam Taleblu, referring to the U.S. Secretary of State's remarks that the United States will never allow the Islamic Republic to acquire nuclear weapons, considers 1404 a fateful year for the ruling system in Iran, referencing Trump's letter to the leader of the Islamic Republic and ongoing discussions in Washington. He states that when Republicans and Trump say all options from good to bad are on the table, it means 'it depends on where the other side stands.' Taleblu believes that the return of the 'maximum pressure' policy, military assistance to Israel, active U.S. diplomacy towards traditional rivals like Russia, and even bilateral diplomacy against traditional U.S. enemies like Hamas will affect the situation of the Islamic Republic, stating that 'by prioritizing any of these, any unpredictable event can become possible.' This political expert emphasizes Trump's statements, where he introduced himself as a 'deal-maker' who 'turns bad deals into good ones,' believing that during his first term, Trump bought time for the Islamic Republic and the JCPOA. He denies the discussions about preconditions regarding the disarmament of Iran by the Trump administration, stating that they at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and other NGOs are calling for 'targeting negotiations' and the disarmament of Iran's missile and nuclear capabilities, and the U.S. diplomatic apparatus has not set such preconditions. According to Taleblu, it is the Islamic Republic that has set preconditions, stating that it will not negotiate as long as maximum pressure remains. Javadi-Hesar claims that from Taleblu's remarks, it can be inferred that even if the JCPOA was signed, it was fulfilling the 'needs of the Islamic Republic.' He accuses the United States of violating its commitments to Iran since the 'Algiers talks regarding Iraq.' Javadi-Hesar asks Taleblu if global relations will be disrupted every four years with the election of a U.S. president. Taleblu responds that the issue is not the inclination of this president or that one, but the national interests of the U.S. and how they intertwine with international laws. He mentions discussions in Congress over the past decade regarding the JCPOA, stating that 'the JCPOA was never approved as an agreement in the Senate.' He adds that Iranian officials, including Mohammad Javad Zarif, mocked this issue and 'now they are paying the price.' Taleblu, a senior researcher at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, states that 'the maximum pressure policy was only present for a year and a half,' but with the failure of negotiations to return to the JCPOA, the start of the war between Russia and Ukraine, and the protests of 'Women, Life, Freedom,' Europeans have followed and implemented Trump's policy towards Iran. Taleblu discusses the multilateralization of sanctions without Trump's presence, believing that if the history of the JCPOA and the agreement itself is not understood correctly, it is 'own goal scoring.' Javadi-Hesar states that Taleblu's remarks imply that American desires differ from their national interests, and similarly, 'the interests of the Iranian nation and national security cannot be separated from the dissatisfaction arising from economic issues and others.' He responds to a question about the costs of Iran's actions, such as the slogan 'destruction of Israel,' for national interests and security, asserting that 'these words have an expiration date, and the Islamic Republic has never attacked Israel.' Taleblu refers to the retaliatory attacks of the Islamic Republic, mentioning 'Honest Promise 1 and 2,' stating that it has never been the case that a country without nuclear weapons attacks a country with nuclear weapons. Javadi-Hesar asks Taleblu what this means, suggesting that it implies Iran has nuclear weapons and has attacked based on that. Taleblu rejects this other guest's premise, stating that it means politicians, especially those in the military domain, have raised the risk level with Israel to a point where the war that for forty years the Islamic Republic's rulers have cost the national interests of the Iranian people to support militias and proxies has moved towards open war. This political researcher in Washington believes that currently, in Israel and the U.S., the discussion is not about accepting or rejecting Trump's letter by the Islamic Republic, but about the nature of the attack. The weekly program 'Paragraph One' is produced in collaboration with Benjamin Sadr and Shahram Ebrahimi and is broadcast live every Wednesday at 8:30 PM Tehran time on Radio Farda. To participate in this program, send your message or contact number to us via the ID @fardagram on Telegram so we can contact you.