Interview with the newspaper "Donyaye Eqtesad" on October 15, 2025 -
The interview was in Persian and the translation below was done by Ai.
Donyaye Eqtesad - Saeideh Sadat Fahri:
Donald Trump's call for negotiations and peace after the 12-day war and the return of UN sanctions, especially in a situation where unilateral US sanctions are being imposed on Iran at their maximum level, has raised the question of what the US President means by such comments and is negotiation really possible under the current circumstances?
Sasan Karimi, a member of the faculty of Tehran University, told the "Donya Eqtesad" newspaper that today, instead of responding positively or negatively to the verbal and communication actions of Trump and his government, Iran should take the initiative and determine its own design and impose it on the other side.
According to this expert, in order to solve its foreign policy problem, Iran should try to make a bold and at the same time honorable decision and make different parties benefit from it. It is not an easy task, but it is possible and desirable. Karimi believes that Trump's talks about negotiation should not be trusted and these talks are aimed at accusing Iran of not negotiating. The university professor also emphasized that we must believe that the JCPOA model was from 2015 and that today, single-issue negotiations will be neither possible nor effective.
These days, there is a lot of talk about negotiations with Iran from the United States and Donald Trump himself. In the latest example, Trump spoke on the sidelines of the Sharm el-Sheikh summit about the possibility of reaching peace with Iran. What do you think Trump’s words mean?
Trump is seeking to build personal prestige and the content of the issue is not so important to him. In his opinion, the potential nuclear threat from Iran has been eliminated by war, Iran does not have the ability and will to pose a nuclear threat, and the rest of the issues are completely manageable. Therefore, the issue of Iran is not a priority for him. This issue is more meaningful in light of his narcissistic personality. Now he is trying to humiliate Europe, maintain and consolidate his strength in the Middle East region, especially the Arab countries, contain Israel, and prioritize China in his economic and trade competition. Russia and Iran have been weakened to disproportionate levels and have lost their leverage, and this erosion must be preserved for them. Naturally, after the Gaza agreement, the Arab positions are closer to the United States than ever before. They have become concerned about containing Israel, and this issue reached its peak with the Zionist regime’s attack on Qatar. Now, as they get closer to Trump, this concern is decreasing.
However, the major opponent of this approach is the Israeli regime, and especially Netanyahu himself, who, in addition to the harsh stance of his political regime, also has personal interests in this issue: both in terms of his political legacy over the past few decades and due to the fragility of the coalition that is essential for the continuation of the government. Other tendencies in Israel are typically more radical than Netanyahu, and now, after the Gaza agreement, they will attack him more than ever, calling him a “stalker.” Therefore, Netanyahu may encourage himself and the United States to militarize the approach towards Iran in order to save himself and his government, as well as from the fear of the corruption courts that await him.
Considering the comments of Iranian officials in the past month or two, what is Tehran’s view on the subject of negotiations?
The officials themselves should express their views. However, it seems that Iran is cautious about moving towards any ambiguity in negotiations. This caution is understandable to some extent. Because it is possible that it will move forward by showing political will to start the dialogue and then encounter unacceptable content conditional on it. Therefore, the dialogue has become conditional.
In my opinion, instead of responding positively or negatively to the verbal and communicative actions of Trump and his government, Iran should take the initiative and determine its own design and impose it on the other side. This imposition, of course, is sometimes accompanied by a prescription that is impressive enough to encourage both the main parties and other stakeholders in the vicinity to enter into it. But I think it is unlikely that this design exists. Such an initiative requires boldness in thinking and a kind of freethinking that can take a person out of previous molds. To solve its foreign policy problem, Iran must try to make a bold and at the same time honorable decision and make different parties benefit from it. It is not an easy task, but it is possible and desirable. This should be done more than anywhere else in the country's senior foreign policy intellectual circles, but the introduction to it is a request and creating a significant margin for individuals, and the end result is action in creating a situation and a decision.
In your opinion, given Trump's statements and the reaction of Iranian officials, is there a possibility of negotiation and compromise?
In my opinion, no. Because Mr. Trump had also raised these words in the months before the 12-day war. These words are not for the purpose of compromise, but more than anything else, they are intended to condemn the Islamic Republic of Iran in the game of blame. He wants to convince Iranian and world public opinion that he is a compromiser, but it is Iran that is the stubborn party. However, as soon as he gets into the content, we realize that this is not the case. At the same time, the issue of sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran, including unilateral American and recently European sanctions on the one hand, and sanctions under the six UN Security Council resolutions on the other, cannot be effectively resolved in the current situation without substantive negotiations. Substantive negotiations may not be limited to one issue and will certainly require a new design.
We must believe that the JCPOA model was from 2015 and that today, single-issue negotiations will no longer be possible or effective. Similarly, in the same issue, many of the harms and difficulties of the negotiations were rooted in its single-issue nature. But in any case, in my opinion, that straw broke and that measure was spilled. We should not think that we can complicate the equations and, in the end, if many blind spots are created, we will bring in someone like Dr. Zarif and somehow solve the issue by using his personal ability, reputation, and credibility. This is not possible this time; because we, the region, and the world have all experienced a fundamental change in the situation.
Donyaye Eghtesad Link
