An analysis on negation of “Resistance – Negotiation” duality in recent statements form Supreme Leader of Revolution

Important remarks last week by the Supreme Leader from his emphasis on historical vigilance towards the enemy’s position to encourage negotiations with the “internal element” had important historical lessons for society.

The most important warning emphasized in his statements was the rejection of the claim that economic growth and public prosperity in Iran would mean some kind of compromise with the United States and normalization of relations with the country.

The purpose of the  Resistance – Negotiation duality is to instill such a perception of the confrontation between Iran and the United States that; “With economic sanctions and without direct military confrontation, the United States could seriously endanger Iran’s economy, especially public livelihoods, and even endanger political stability in the country, so we must back down from some of our positions to avoid these sanctions.”

Spying or betraying Iranian negotiators on the one hand, and imagining Iranians’ lack of access to safe water in the absence of an agreement with the United States or even the concept of Kadkhoda, are all out of the heart of this image, an image that has been criticized many times in the positions of the Supreme Leader, especially in recent years.

In his recent remarks, the Supreme Leader reiterated the need to strengthen internal power in various areas and called for the authorities to be vigilant against foreign enemies and he said, “When you say you should negotiate with the world, can’t you negotiate with the internal authorities and resolve differences?”

The wise leader of the revolution went on to call for a greater focus on the neutralization of sanctions, while at the same time deeming it appropriate to try to lift the sanctions through diplomacy; Provided that this policy can be pursued “in the right, wise, Iranian-Islamic and dignified manner.”

Warning about trust in the promise of foreigners, while expressing the supreme leader’s concern about the existence of such a belief among some officials, indicates the continuation of a realistic attitude of distrust of the enemies, which has been prominent in the leadership positions from the outset, and with the us and the West’s mistrust of the JCPOA, it seems more and more defensible these days.

This mistrust is the main platform for the policy of the resistance economy and his emphasis on a comprehensive effort to strengthen the internal character. The issue that was noted in the next part of the recent statements reminded him of his longstanding demands from different governments about the necessity of increasing endogenous power in the country.

But part of the rhetoric, highlighted mostly by the international media, was the Supreme Leader’s emphasis on lifting sanctions, a position that would naturally open the way for a return to the JCPOA and the continuation of diplomacy with the West.

This orientation can also be interpreted in the same realistic context that the Iranian leadership in all circumstances views diplomacy as only a tool for advancing interests, neither the path of compromise and withdrawal nor the only way out of the current situation.

Diplomacy and negotiations with the West, from the perspective of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, can only meet the expectations of the Iranian people if they enjoy a reliable backing, otherwise diplomats’ positions will not only lose credibility, but may also make the country’s other means of dealing with existing threats inefficient.

The focus of the country’s forces on neutralizing unfair sanctions in the days of trump’s maximum pressure strategy, along with maintaining internal unity and a voice against a foreign enemy, is the main backbone of the country’s diplomacy against the United States and other regional and trans-regional rivals of Iran, which disregarding these backings and sacrificing them in the interests of the group and faction will only lead to a second burning opportunity.

In this intellectual framework, resistance has no contradiction with negotiations, which means a tool for the protection of the rights of the nation, and if the effect of sanctions can be resolved by internal empowerment, the enemy realizes that it is dealing with a strong, ready and resilient nation that the embargo has no effect on him, so then he will not fall on the whim of negotiations to impose his will and, while removing pressure, will enter the negotiating arena on equal terms.