America’s Carrot-and-Stick Policy Has Currently Canceled The Negotiations — Will The Suspension Of Talks Be Prolonged?

According to the political desk of Saed News, Mohsen Pak Aeen continued:

The following points are worth noting in this regard:

1. The invitation to negotiate came from the United States and was proposed in a letter from Trump. The Islamic Republic of Iran agreed to indirect talks mediated by Oman. This decision demonstrated Iran’s determination to use diplomacy to secure the legitimate interests of its people and to put an end to unjust sanctions. The Iranian delegation entered the negotiations in good faith and based on its principled positions to reach a fair and lasting agreement—and remained steadfast in that path.

2. Although Witkoff, as the president's envoy, engaged in the talks with interest and relatively reasonable positions, some U.S. officials acted inconsistently. This not only caused doubt in Tehran but also led many political observers around the world to question the seriousness of the American side in pursuing the negotiations. The positions of U.S. opponents of the negotiations did not align with or support those of their appointed representative and did not reflect America’s national interests. It appeared that a coalition of warmongers and hardline neoconservatives, along with failed Democrats, were attempting a coup against Witkoff and trying to sabotage the negotiations.

3. Simultaneously, the imposition of new U.S. sanctions on Iranian individuals and entities revealed that the United States is still pursuing its failed carrot-and-stick policy—aiming to direct negotiations in its own favor through pressure and intimidation. However, Iran has repeatedly and at various levels declared that it will not negotiate under pressure and threats and will show no flexibility in such conditions. These sanctions were further evidence of the contradictory behavior of American policymakers and the lack of goodwill and seriousness in the U.S. government. This increased public distrust toward the U.S. among the Iranian people.

4. The Zionist regime, as the main opponent of the indirect Tehran–Washington talks, attempted through various tactics to influence American officials. Initially, this regime sought secret negotiations with Witkoff, the lead U.S. negotiator, to persuade him to change his stance. In this regard, David Barnea, head of Mossad, and Ron Dermer, Israel’s Minister of Strategic Affairs, tried to convince Witkoff not to attend the second round of indirect negotiations with Iran in Rome—but failed. Despite this, deep concerns remained in Israel over the success of the talks, prompting them to send representatives to the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament in an effort to disrupt the negotiations. However, the positive impressions gained by Araghchi and Witkoff from the second round of talks led to disappointment among Israeli officials, even though contradictory statements from U.S. officials continued.

In conclusion, the delay in the negotiations may be attributed to internal contradictions within the U.S. government. Until a unified voice is heard from the American side, there can be no real hope for the future of the talks. Iran’s position is completely transparent and aligned with its national interests. If Trump and his allies truly consider America’s national interests, they must demonstrate their will by building consensus within the government to support the negotiations. That said, recent reports over the past 24 hours indicating the removal of some of the most hardline opponents of negotiations in the U.S., along with America's stated willingness to proceed with the fourth round of talks, have cast doubt on the earlier speculations about a prolonged suspension of negotiations.