Strategic Mistakes of Rouhani and Soleimani in Response to the U.S. President and CIA Chief

Look at the two important news items below: When Hassan Rouhani was in New York for the annual UN General Assembly in September, Donald Trump, through French President Emmanuel Macron, invited him for a meeting, which Rouhani declined. In recent months, Mike Pompeo, the CIA director, sent a letter through an intermediary to General Qassem Soleimani, who refused to accept and read the letter. The first news was initially revealed in an article by Mahdi Fazeli on October 29, 2017, in the Fars News Agency - affiliated with the IRGC and Basij - and was confirmed on the same day by Bahram Qasemi, the spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry. The second news was revealed by Mohammadi Golpayegani, head of the leadership office, on November 30, 2017, in Mashhad. He said: "Recently, when Qassem Soleimani was in Boukamal, the CIA director sent a letter to General Soleimani through one of his intermediaries in the region, but he said, 'I will not accept your letter, I will not read it, and I will not talk to these people at all.'" Regarding Trump's request from Rouhani, Heather Nauert, the U.S. State Department spokeswoman, said: "I know the Secretary of State had raised an issue... Iranian officials said no, and the matter ended." Major U.S. and Israeli media published details of this invitation. For example, the Washington Post wrote on November 2, 2017, that Donald Trump asked his French counterpart the night before his harsh speech against Iran at the UN General Assembly whether Iranian officials were willing to talk to U.S. officials. After Trump's initial inquiry, Rex Tillerson also asked Emmanuel Macron to find out if Hassan Rouhani was willing to speak directly with the U.S. President. The second American effort came a few hours after his speech on September 19 at the UN General Assembly, where he called the Iranian government a corrupt dictatorship and a rogue regime. According to this report, the Iranian side responded negatively the very next afternoon. The French told the Americans that the Iranian side "does not believe you are serious" and considered this request a kind of trick. An American official told the Washington Post that Trump's goal in speaking with Hassan Rouhani was to warn him about "Iran's bad behavior in the world" and to say, "If you don't stop, you should know that we are working on a strategy to confront all of this with you... the golden opportunity of the Obama era to improve relations between the two countries has passed." What was written in that letter? Was there no possibility that receiving and reading the letter would be necessary? Why didn't Rouhani meet with Trump? What was Trump going to say to him? Trump tends to describe all his actions - including diplomatic meetings with heads of state - as excellent, the best, and unprecedented in history. A meeting with Rouhani would also count as a domestic success for him. Didn't Zarif and Tillerson meet at the same time? Didn't both sides describe that meeting as respectful? Did Trump insult Rouhani during their meeting that he avoided? Both sides would express their views, and in the end, Trump would also consider the meeting serious and successful. Regarding the second news, Mike Pompeo, the CIA director, confirmed on December 2 in a speech at the annual Reagan National Defense Forum that he sent a letter to Qassem Soleimani, saying: "I sent a note [to Soleimani]. I sent this note because he said that the forces under his control might threaten U.S. interests in Iraq. He refused to open the letter. To be honest, this did not break my heart. In the letter, we said that we would hold him and Iran responsible [if they attacked U.S. interests in Iraq] and would hold them accountable. We wanted to make sure that this issue was crystal clear to him and the leadership of Iran." Looking at the consequences of these actions and reactions: First - No negotiations with infidels: Ayatollah Nouri Hamadani said on November 30, 2017: "We will never negotiate with infidels. We must deal with infidels with severity, and with this Islam, we will be successful day by day." First: Infidel in the Quran refers to individuals who, for psychological reasons (envy, animosity, hatred, superiority, ingratitude, etc.), deny the truth of Islam like the sun (for example: An-Naml, 14 - Al-Baqarah, 89 - An-Naml, 40 - Ibrahim, 7 - etc.). This means that they, while acknowledging the truth of the Prophet Muhammad's invitation, maliciously deny this truth. Thus, according to the Quran, anyone who has not reached the truth of Islam for rational and conscious reasons is not necessarily called an infidel. Second: If a group of people during the time of the Prophet's mission, despite knowing the truth of Islam, denied it for psychological reasons, there is no evidence to claim that people today, despite understanding the truth of Islam, deny it for psychological reasons. Contemporary people have not reached the truth of Islam compared to other religions and have not concluded that "when a hundred comes, ninety is also with us." That is, Islam is a hundred that encompasses ninety-eight, eighty, and seventy of other religions and beliefs. Third: Many contemporary individuals, considering the actions of terrorist groups (Taliban, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Al-Shabab, Al-Nusra Front, Boko Haram, Sepah-e-Sahaba, etc.) and governments like Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Republic, Sudan, Pakistan, etc.; for epistemological and ethical reasons, deny Islam. These actions, considered Islamic, have led them to conclude that Islam is not a rational and ethical religion. Fourth: Jurists consider every non-Muslim to be an infidel. To advance the dialogue (the best debate), contrary to the opinion of the Quran, we accept the ruling of the jurists. Has the Islamic Republic "never" negotiated with infidels? This claim of this religious authority is completely false. Has the Islamic Republic not had relations with communist governments like Cuba, North Korea, China, etc., and has it not negotiated with them? Has the Islamic Republic not had relations with Christian governments in Russia and Europe and negotiated with them? Has the Islamic Republic not had relations with Eastern religion governments (Buddhist, Hindu, etc.) and negotiated with them? Fifth: This false claim, made to close the door to negotiations with the U.S., is even false in this case. Because the Iranian and American governments conducted direct nuclear negotiations and reached an agreement. Second - Rewarding Iran's enemies and rivals: Undoubtedly, the lack of relations between Iran and the U.S., and worse, the confrontation between the U.S. and Iran, benefits the governments of Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Russia, China, etc. In fact, the Islamic Republic, with this misguided policy, rewards Iran's enemies and rivals. Third - Putin's mafia: Ayatollah Khamenei has chosen the infidel Russia as one of his allies. Jurists and sycophants constantly speak proudly of the meetings between Vladimir Putin - "former comrade" and "subsequent mafia" - with Ayatollah Khamenei. Does Putin's Russia, despite differences and conflicting interests, not have relations with the U.S.? Has it cut its relationship with the U.S. because of what the Islamic Republic calls the "imperialist nature of the U.S."? Putin is eagerly waiting to negotiate with Trump and improve Russia-U.S. relations. The communist China - which is the most important global rival of the U.S. - has the best relations with this government. China and Russia, at the same time, have good relations with Israel and the Islamic Republic. Fourth - Erdogan's neo-Ottomanism: Look at Turkey under Erdogan's rule. Thanks to strong relations with the U.S., Europe, and Israel, Erdogan has pushed Turkey towards expanding his personal power. Although months have passed since the coup of July 15, 2016, Erdogan has dismissed about 150,000 people, imprisoned more than 55,000, shut down dozens of media outlets, and has suppressed his opponents and critics. We still read news every day and witness new arrests of coup plotters. Relations with the infidel U.S. and membership in the infidel NATO have guaranteed Turkey's national security and built a fully equipped army with modern weapons for it. Fifth - Negotiation for interests: Securing interests is the subject and goal of international relations. China, Russia, Turkey, etc., negotiate and have relations with the U.S. to secure their interests. The U.S. government is also seeking its own interests. Every government seeks to secure its interests through extensive international communications. The "exception" is the Islamic Republic, which has no relations and cannot negotiate with the U.S., Canada, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Israel, etc. Sixth - Regional power: The Islamic Republic seeks regional power in the Middle East. Are the governments of Russia, Israel, China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Turkey, etc., not pursuing the same goal? Which of these are pursuing this goal in confrontation with the U.S. and Israel? How do we know that this process will not lead to a regional war against Iran? Seventh - The Syrian issue: All countries want influence in Syria. Russia and Turkey constantly negotiate with the U.S. to secure their interests in Syria. Erdogan constantly threatens the U.S. government regarding the Syrian Kurds. He says the Syrian Kurds are a terrorist group, and the U.S. has no right to arm them and choose them as allies. He has negotiated with Donald Trump at least twice regarding this issue, and the Trump administration has promised to retrieve the weapons given to the Kurds after defeating ISIS. Why do Ayatollah Khamenei and his supporters fear negotiations with the U.S.? Do they consider the other side very strong or do they consider their own negotiators very weak? The nuclear negotiations and the resulting agreement benefited Iran's national interests. In two months, the fortieth anniversary of the revolution will begin. Has the Islamic Republic not been able to train strong and reliable diplomats for negotiations during this time, and is Ayatollah Khamenei still suspicious of all negotiators that they will not betray? This is another failure for the Islamic Republic, the cost of which the people of Iran must pay. Russia and the U.S. have also had confidential negotiations regarding Syria. The joint statement of Putin and Trump reveals part of their agreements. When the Islamic Republic does not negotiate with the U.S. over Syria, instead, Turkey and especially Russia negotiate and place Iran in front of agreements that serve their interests, not Iran's interests. The Israeli government has stated that it has bombed Syria more than a hundred times. Bombing the targets of the Syrian government and its Iranian and Hezbollah allies has become a routine matter for Israel. Everyone knows that Netanyahu has met with Putin several times and reached agreements regarding Syria. In other words, the Israeli Prime Minister has obtained Putin's consent to strike Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah bases. Eighth - The American/Israeli/Arab front against Iran: Every day, when you look at news reports, members of the Trump administration and members of Netanyahu's government talk about the American/Israeli/Arab front against Iran. Jared Kushner - Trump's son-in-law and senior advisor - said at the Saban Forum on December 3, 2017, that we have made significant progress in uniting regional countries against Iran and working to counter this country's aggression. Arab countries have concluded that Israel is no longer their enemy, and now Iran, ISIS, and extremism are their enemies in order. The day before, H.R. McMaster, the U.S. National Security Advisor, said at the Ronald Reagan Foundation in California: "What Iran is doing throughout the Middle East is fueling violence so that it can take advantage of the chaotic situations and weak governments for its benefit... Iran has been able to achieve its goals in the region through arming and using terrorist groups." Leon Panetta, former Secretary of Defense and former CIA chief, said at the same forum: "In the Middle East, where we have failed states, ISIS, and Iran, we need to have strong coalitions of countries to confront these challenges. The U.S. cannot do this alone, and it is clear that Saudi Arabia cannot do this alone, and other countries in the region cannot do this alone, but together and by creating coalitions that include Arab countries that work with the U.S., Israel, and Turkey, we can do this." The news of the formation of an American/Israeli/Arab coalition against Iran is not only confirmed by the leaders of these countries but also acknowledged by some officials of the Islamic Republic. Is the formation of such a coalition not very dangerous for Iran and Iranians? Ninth - Destruction of capital and technology for development: Iran's economic development and solving economic problems require one trillion dollars over ten years. Foreign investment and the transfer of modern technology are necessary conditions for this. If relations with the U.S. and other countries do not improve, there will be no transfer of capital and technology. It is enough to compare the air force of the Shah's time with the air force of the Islamic Republic era. During the Shah's time, Iran had the strongest and most advanced air force in the Middle East. However, the air forces of the Islamic Republic rely on some American fighter jets from the Shah's time and some Russian fighter jets from the 1980s that Saddam sent during the U.S. attack on Iraq. The U.S. can not only prevent the transfer of capital and technology to Iran but can also disrupt Iran's current exports and imports. Tenth - Fear of negotiation: In this context, the lack of a meeting between Hassan Rouhani and Donald Trump and the refusal of General Soleimani to receive the CIA director's letter should be considered a strategic mistake. Hassan Rouhani cannot negotiate or meet with Trump or Americans without Ayatollah Khamenei's permission. However, General Soleimani could have received the letter. At least in this case, the existence of Iran is at stake.