Araqchi: The ball is now in America's court

According to Ashura News, quoted by Mehr News Agency, Seyyed Abbas Araghchi, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, wrote in a note to the Washington Post: In recent weeks, a series of letters and messages have been exchanged between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America.

The text of this noteRemove link is as follows:

In recent weeks, a series of letters and messages have been exchanged between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America. Contrary to some superficial interpretations, these communications - at least on our part - have been neither symbolic nor ceremonial. We consider them a genuine attempt to clarify positions and open a window to diplomacy.

In light of President Donald Trump's statements on Monday, Iran is ready to engage seriously and to enter into dialogue with the aim of reaching an agreement. We will meet in Oman on Saturday for indirect talks. This meeting is as much an opportunity as it is a test.

The model we propose for this engagement is not innovative or unprecedented. The United States itself is mediating indirect negotiations between Russia and Ukraine – a much more intense and complex conflict that encompasses strategic, territorial, military, security and economic dimensions.

I have personally had the experience of leading indirect negotiations with the United States. This process, brokered by the European Union in 2021, while more complex and difficult than direct negotiations, was both possible and fruitful. Although we did not reach the finish line then, the main reason for this was the lack of real will on the part of the Joe Biden administration.

Pursuing indirect negotiations is not a tactic nor a reflection of an ideological tendency, but a strategic choice made on the basis of experience. We face a great wall of mistrust and serious doubts about the sincerity of intentions; Doubts that have been exacerbated by the US insistence on resuming a policy of “maximum pressure” before any diplomatic engagement.

To move forward, we must first come to a shared understanding of the fact that there is, in principle, no such thing as a “military option,” let alone a “military solution.” President Trump has clearly acknowledged this fact by recommending a ceasefire as a first step to ending the war in Ukraine.

Spending American taxpayers’ money on an increased US military presence in our region—a presence that could put the lives of American soldiers thousands of miles away—not only fails to produce a diplomatic outcome, but hinders it. The proud Iranian people, on whose strength my government relies for real deterrence, will never accept coercion.

We cannot imagine that President Trump wants to become another U.S. president embroiled in a disastrous war in the Middle East, one that will spread throughout the region and cost the American people well over seven trillion dollars in taxpayer dollars—a cost that previous U.S. administrations squandered in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Looking ahead, two key points are worth emphasizing.

First, President Trump may not be interested in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), but the agreement contains a key commitment: “Iran reaffirms that it will never, under any circumstances, seek, produce, or acquire a nuclear weapon.”

(Paragraph iii of the “Preamble and General Provisions” of the JCPOA)

Ten years after the JCPOA was concluded—and nearly seven years after the United States unilaterally withdrew from the agreement—there is no evidence that Iran has violated this commitment.

This has been repeatedly confirmed in assessments by U.S. intelligence agencies.

Tulsi Gabbard, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, recently stated: “Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, and the Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] has not reactivated the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.”

We have serious criticisms and complaints about many aspects of American global policy, and particularly Western policies in our region, including double standards on proliferation. Similarly, there may be some concerns about our nuclear program. We demonstrated our readiness to address these concerns when we joined the JCPOA in 2015, an agreement that was forged from a position of equality and mutual respect.

But while we remain committed to the JCPOA framework, our experience with the unwillingness or inability of the United States and the European Union to fulfill their commitments under the nuclear agreement has led many in Iran to conclude that any new agreement requires guarantees of mutual fulfillment of the commitments.

Second, there is a serious misconception that needs to be addressed. Many in Washington portray Iran as an economically closed country. But the reality is that Iran is fully open to the active presence of international companies and businesses. These restrictions, not from Iran, but from U.S. governments and Congressional barriers, have prevented American companies from entering the Iranian market—a market with trillions of dollars of opportunity.

In fact, when the United States authorized the sale of passenger aircraft under the JCPOA, Iran immediately entered into negotiations and signed contracts with Boeing for more than 80 aircraft. To say that the opportunities for trade and investment in Iran are unparalleled is an understatement.

Our offer to begin indirect talks remains on the table. We believe that there is always a way forward if there is real will. As recent experience has shown, diplomacy has worked in the past and can continue to work. We stand ready to make our peaceful intentions clear and to take the necessary steps to address any legitimate concerns. In contrast, the United States can demonstrate its seriousness on the path of diplomacy by truly adhering to the agreement it signs. If we are respected, we will respond with respect.

But an increased military presence sends the exact opposite message. Mark my words: Iran prefers diplomacy, but it knows how to defend itself. We have not surrendered to threats in the past, and we will not surrender now, and we will not surrender in the future. We want peace, but we will never surrender.

The ball is now in America’s court. If America seeks a genuine diplomatic solution, we have already shown the way. But if its goal is to impose its will through pressure, it should know: The Iranian people will respond unitedly and decisively to the language of force and threats. Now is the opportunity for the United States to finally have a “president of peace.” Whether it seizes this opportunity or not is up to them.