Why the Islamic Republic Cannot Accept Negotiations in Trump's Style?

Donald Trump's announcement of readiness to negotiate and reach a 'real agreement' with the Islamic Republic, one day after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's speech to Iranian-Americans, has raised concerns among supporters of increased pressure on the religious government and hope among advocates of engagement with the regime. A well-known former ambassador of the Islamic Republic, who had a role in justifying the nuclear agreement during negotiations with the 1+5 group, seemingly proposed to 'maintain the nuclear agreement in the absence of the U.S.' without new negotiations, using the new media wave and intensifying the Cold War between the U.S. and Iran, apparently to avoid the emergence of the 'mother of all wars' or delay internal collapse. Opponents of the Islamic Republic view the escalation of tensions in Tehran-Washington relations as a means to accelerate the collapse process and change the regime due to increased internal and external pressures, while 'reformist' supporters of the government hope that the administration can create a new opportunity to circumvent the current crisis by agreeing to new negotiations. The 'hidden' twist in Donald Trump's 'threat and charm' policy has prompted both opponents and supporters of the Iranian government to reflect, placing the chances of hypothetical dialogues in a realm of many uncertainties, which is somewhat elucidated in the U.S. President's additional explanations. As he stated: 'We are ready to reach a real agreement (with the Islamic Republic), but not like what was formed in the previous administration (Obama), which was a disaster.' Negotiation is the outcome of discussions aimed at resolving disputes on one or more issues and achieving the desired goals between two or more parties—at the family level, in the workplace, production, or between countries. Negotiation, reaching an agreement, contracting, and interaction to resolve disputes, confront challenges, or reduce tensions have become a scientific skill in state relations over centuries, with its own specific techniques and concepts. A 'disastrous' agreement usually results from negotiations conducted from a position of weakness or deliberate and accidental flexibility or betrayal by one party. Donald Trump has repeatedly framed Obama's nuclear agreement with the Islamic Republic in this context, and in Iran, it has also been referred to as the 'Turkmenchay Treaty,' which serves as a model for defining imposed and disastrous agreements. Unconditional negotiations, accompanied by mutual rights and respect, occur between powers that possess equal or balanced negotiating capacities. The current U.S. administration, unlike the situation that existed during the two-year nuclear negotiations between the previous U.S. administration and the Islamic Republic, has announced 12 preconditions for reaching a new agreement with the Iranian government and has adopted sanctions and financial and economic penalties as leverage to impose and accept these conditions. During the discussions that led to the 2015 nuclear agreement, representatives of the U.S. government and emissaries of the Islamic Republic faced each other as the main negotiating parties, with equal rights and mutual respect. Gaining global credibility and implicit recognition of the legitimacy of the Islamic government during the nuclear negotiations, and the appearance of its representatives as envoys of a conventional system, constituted part of the hidden benefits of the agreement, especially after the widespread internal protests in 2009, which severely damaged the legitimacy of the revolutionary government. The Trump administration has targeted the claimed legitimacy of the regime as part of a Cold War and extensive political attacks, demanding changes in the internal and external policies of the Iranian government while cutting off financial resources and applying military pressures. Nevertheless, the ultimate goal of the current U.S. administration's punitive and sanctioning policies regarding the Islamic Republic is not limited to changing its behaviors; it aims at its collapse, which, due to adherence to international law principles—such as the 'principle of equality of nations and their right to self-determination,' the principle of 'sovereignty and independence of countries,' the principle of 'non-interference in the internal affairs of countries,' and the principle of 'prohibition of threats or use of force' reflected in the UN Charter—cannot officially declare its main subject. Within this framework, the recent statements by the U.S. President regarding the possibility of reaching an agreement with Tehran, although mentioning 'changing' the internal and external behaviors of the Islamic Republic, are actually seeking to 'change its nature.' In the view of the current U.S. administration, forcing the Islamic Republic to accept an inevitable agreement could achieve the goal of changing the nature of the government through a process that may be longer but at a lower cost; a repetition of Ronald Reagan's victory in accelerating the collapse of the former Soviet Union and ending the Cold War era. Understanding these differences, and perhaps reviewing history, is why this time Hassan Rouhani, unlike the previous occasion when he welcomed dialogue with the Obama administration, has joined the ranks of opponents of negotiations with Trump. One day before Pompeo's recent speech to Iranian-Americans, Rouhani stated: 'The group that is currently in power in America, if we yield to them and take a step back, will plunder all the interests of the nation, and in this situation, we are not afraid and will stand against them until the last drop of our blood.' Hassan Rouhani knows well that the Islamic government had the opportunity to reduce external tensions and ease internal problems using the openings and advantages gained after the nuclear agreement and through a 'beyond the framework' method, transforming military and subversive enemies into harmless enemies, harmless enemies into opponents, opponents into rivals, and rivals into allies and companions. However, in a reverse progression and misuse of the opportunity, during the two dark years following the agreement, it turned its companions, even within the regime, into sworn enemies, and today it is forced to either drink a new cup of poison or wait for inevitable collapse.