در روز‌های اخیر، مذاکره غیرمستقیم بین ایران و امریکا در عمان به یکی از مهم‌ترین موضوعات مورد بحث تبدیل شده است. این موضوع برای بسیاری از افراد به موضوعی پر deberá و مтыاقش شده است که اندکی نیز از تنش و اختلاف نظری در بین هم‌钻音 و مخالفان آن به وجود آمده است. این دو گروه مشترک، بدون بین‌النهرینی، به حاشیه‌های تضاد خود برخوردار شده‌اند، به طوری که وجه دید سومی به ظاهر وجود ندارد.
در واقع، بسیاری از اختلافات اخیر کشور نتیجه این نگاه دو ,[قطبی] است که می‌بیند و می‌شناسد، صرفاً سیاه یا سفید، و راه سومی به وجود نمی‌آورد. این برداشت، نیازمند تعیین اختیار از کنار این یا آن گروه است؛ اگر شما در این گروه نیستید، قطعاً در گروه دیگر هستید. این دیدگاه تنگ‌بین و محدود، برای هر موضوعی موارد استثنا برای ع realistic و تعادل نمی‌پذیرد و به جامعه اجازه نمی‌دهد به لایه‌های بینی نگاه کند.
در پیام‌های اخیر حکیم انقلاب اسلامی در تلاقی با مسئولان کشور، بیانات وی در بررسی جوانب مختلف مذاکرات عمان، مر AMA keypoints and strategic perspectives have been raised. One of the significant points was the emphasis on maintaining a balanced perspective, neither excessively optimistic nor overly pessimistic about these talks. The leader advocates for a third way, a moderate stance that does not see the negotiations as the sole solution to all the country’s problems nor as a sign of betrayal or weakness.
Based on this perspective, negotiations are officially recognized as a tool for resolving some of the foreign policy disputes of the Islamic Republic, but their boundaries and limits are defined within the framework of the main principles and the threefold foundation of dignity, wisdom, and national interest. Therefore, Iran sets the parameters of the engagement, and if the opposing side agrees to these terms, dialogue becomes possible. However, if the rival seeks dominance, imposes its will, and treats talks as a means to undermine Iran’s sovereignty, such negotiations would not be rational, wise, or honorable.
What has changed from the past negation of talks to their current form is precisely this foundational shift. Today, the Islamic Republic’s resolve in shaping the dialogue has advanced, and the same Trump administration that two months ago demanded Iran’s unconditional surrender at the negotiating table has been forced to accept indirect talks in Oman. This means recognizing Iran’s legal right to nuclear technology while only negotiating the levels of enrichment.
In essence, the talks in the months of Esfand and Farvardin have taken on a fundamentally different character. The Esfand negotiations aimed at Iran’s capitulation to global arrogance, whereas today’s talks are grounded in dignity and wisdom, with the goal of gaining concessions from the rival. However, achieving the Islamic Republic’s expectations remains shrouded in uncertainty, given the historical track record of the global arrogant powers, characterized by treaty violations and a lack of moral and humanitarian principles. This is why the leadership has openly stated, “We are very pessimistic about the other side; we do not trust them, and we know who they are.”
Public opinion awaits the outcomes of the negotiations, but instead of pre-judging the results, it is essential to view this as an opportunity to learn about politics, understand the enemy, and appreciate the diplomatic capabilities of the Islamic Republic. By fostering a united and supportive society, the public can extend full support to the negotiation team, encouraging them to act powerfully, dignified, and wisely, in the best interests of the nation and the Republic.

توسط jahankhabari.ir