🇮🇷 | "The outcome of Araghchi’s meetings will not be in our favor.”

An interview with Dr. Hamidreza Gholamzadeh, an expert on American affairs, discussing the reports of the meeting between Araghchi and Witkoff.

What is the opponent's perception of our actions? We might have an intention or take a specific action, but a key issue is how the opposing side interprets it. We might act with good intentions, but the other side could easily misinterpret it and draw the wrong conclusions. 

Look, Mr. Trump went before the UN General Assembly in front of all nations and explicitly threatened, humiliated, and insulted us—he did it all. He used harsh, hostile language against us, and when he used the word "annihilate," it literally meant total destruction or erasing us. The implicit message and heavy weight behind such language is the threat of using nuclear weapons. That constitutes an official threat. 

Despite all this, under these conditions, our president goes on a trip, and throughout this trip, there is constant talk of direct negotiations—like Mr. Pezeshkian potentially meeting with Trump—and ultimately, we hear news that Mr. Araghchi has negotiated with the American side, whether directly or indirectly. 

They were the ones requesting the meeting... Look, regardless of who requested it or whether they insisted... because some colleagues wrote last night that it was the Americans insisting. Well, let them insist. They have also been insisting for a long time that we open the Strait of Hormuz—are we obliged to open it? They ask to meet—are we obliged to meet? I'm not even getting into whether this meeting was coordinated with high-ranking authorities, such as the Supreme National Security Council or the head of the negotiating team, or if it happened without coordination. Let's set that aside. 

My main concern is the perception it creates on the opposing side. From these negotiations, this trip, and this demeanor, the other side perceives that Iran is eager to negotiate, and that this eagerness stems from helplessness and desperate need. Naturally, when sensing such desperation, the United States will never be willing to grant you any concessions. 

The U.S. conclusion will simply be: "The pressure I applied worked, so from now on, I should apply even more pressure"—not "Alright, these were good guys who came to negotiate with me, so I'll stop pressing them". The only takeaway for the Americans will be: "I must exert even greater pressure, make further threats, and maintain this vicious cycle until they surrender and regime change occurs—whether a change in behavior or otherwise".

🔹@enemywatch