The UAE Conveys Trump’s Message, Khamenei Rejects Negotiations

On the same day that former Emirati Foreign Minister Anwar Gargash visited Tehran, purportedly to deliver an official communique from President Donald J. Trump to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei categorically dismissed the prospect of diplomatic negotiations with the United States. 

• March 12: Addressing Iranian university students, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei articulated his stance, as reported by his official website: 
  • “Much has transpired since our last gathering in this venue. Last year, the geopolitical landscape was markedly different … Martyr Raisi,” referring to former Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, “was among us, as were the martyrs Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah,” the general secretary of Hezbollah, “Ismail Haniyeh,” the chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau, “Hashem Safieddine,” the head of Hezbollah’s executive council, “Yehya Sinwar,” the chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau, “Mohammed Deif,” the head of the Qassam Brigades, “and numerous prominent revolutionary figures who are no longer with us.” 
  • “Adversaries, opposition forces, and strategic competitors of the Islamic Republic have formulated superficial and erroneous interpretations” of the assassination of those individuals. “To counter their assertions, let me unequivocally state: Yes, these esteemed individuals were invaluable, and their loss constitutes a considerable challenge for us – this is indisputable. However, in their absence, our strength has not diminished; rather, in multiple dimensions, we are more formidable this year. By the grace of God, our strategic capabilities have expanded despite the departure of these dear ones. What has transpired in West Asia has been painful and fraught with difficulty, yet, thanks be to God, the Islamic Republic remains steadfast on its trajectory of growth, resilience, and empowerment.” 
  • “A few sentences about the latest issues concerning America, invitation to negotiations, and the like. First of all, the American president says he has sent a letter, one, which we have not received. I have not received it! In my opinion, when the American president proclaims, ‘We are ready to negotiate with Iran,’ extending an invitation for dialogue, it is nothing but a calculated deception aimed at manipulating global public perception. He seeks to propagate the narrative that the United States is a proponent of negotiation and peace, while Iran is the intransigent party. But why does Iran decline negotiations? Let us reflect. We engaged in protracted diplomatic talks for years. This very individual,” a reference to President Donald J. Trump, took the outcome “of fully concluded and formally ratified negotiations and unilaterally discarded it,” referencing the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal. “When we have concrete evidence that he will not honor his commitments, what manner of negotiation is even conceivable? Consequently, these overtures serve no purpose other than misleading global public opinion.” 
  • “Here in Iran, a columnist working at newspaper X writes: ‘Sir! Two people engaged in a fight sit at the table to negotiate peace. They don’t trust each other, but distrust ought not be an obstacle to negotiations.’ This is wrong. If the two parties engaged in negotiations distrust each other, and do not trust in the counterpart living up to his obligations, they will not continue the talks, since they both know this would be futile. When negotiating, we must have confidence that the counterpart will live up to his obligations. But when we know that he will not do so, why negotiate? Therefore, the invitation to negotiation is deceiving the public opinion.” 
  • “Regarding the issue of U.S. sanctions, our diplomatic engagement culminating in the JCPOA was explicitly aimed at securing sanction relief. Fortunately, over time, the impact of sanctions has been eroding. When punitive measures persist year after year, they gradually lose their efficacy – this is an admission even from the Americans themselves. They acknowledge that sanctioned nations develop mechanisms to progressively neutralize the effects of economic coercion. We have successfully identified numerous pathways to circumvent these measures, thereby diminishing their potency. This is not to suggest that sanctions bear no consequences, but our economic challenges are not solely attributable to them.” 
  • “On the matter of nuclear weapons, it is stated, ‘We will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear arsenal.’ Let me be unequivocal: Had we sought to develop nuclear weapons, the United States would have been powerless to stop us. We do not possess a nuclear weapon, and we are not pursuing one – not because of external pressures, but because we have made a sovereign decision against it based on various reasons. I have elaborated on these reasons previously. However, let there be no misunderstanding: Had we chosen this path, they would not have been able to obstruct us.” 
  • Trump “issues military threats, which in my assessment is reckless and devoid of strategic foresight. Such actions risk instigating war, and, in warfare, it is never one party hitting the other. Iran possesses the capability to retaliate, and, rest assured, we will respond decisively. Indeed, I firmly believe that should the Americans or their regional proxies initiate hostilities, they will ultimately sustain greater harm. Of course, war is not desirable, nor do we seek it, but should aggression be perpetrated against us, our response will be resolute and unequivocal.” 
  • “There are those in Iran, who constantly ask: ‘Why do you refuse to engage? Why do you reject diplomacy? Why do you not take a seat at the negotiation table with the Americans?’ Let me make this explicitly clear: If the objective of such negotiations is the lifting of sanctions, then engaging with this particular U.S. administration will yield the opposite result. He has no intention of alleviating the sanctions. On the contrary, he will escalate the sanctions regime and intensify the pressure. Negotiating under such conditions will not mitigate our challenges; rather, it will exacerbate them. As I conveyed in my recent address to the officials, they will simply introduce new demands and push for ever more excessive concessions. The net effect will be a multiplication of our problems, making negotiations counterproductive.” 
• March 13: Ahmad Zeidabadi, a columnist for the reformist newspaper Ham-Mihan, provided a geopolitical analysis on the United Arab Emirates’ role in mediating between Iran and the United States: 
  • “Trump sending his letter through the United Arab Emirates was an unexpected move. Among regional countries, Oman and Qatar have traditionally served as intermediaries between Tehran and Washington, and the UAE had not previously assumed such a role … Therefore, Trump’s decision to channel a message to the Islamic Republic’s leadership via the UAE must be driven by a specific strategic calculus.” 
  • “Within what is known as ‘the Abraham Accords,’ the UAE has established official diplomatic relations with Israel. Simultaneously, it remains a crucial conduit for Iran’s economic transactions with the external world. The United States has, for years, exercised strategic tolerance toward this arrangement despite the sanctions regime imposed on Iran. However, the Trump administration appears intent on curtailing this avenue. The UAE also maintains robust, strategic, and economically lucrative ties with both Russia and China.” 
  • “It appears that the Emirati delegation did not visit Tehran solely to transmit Trump’s message. Rather, it is highly probable that Abu Dhabi seeks to engage in substantive diplomatic engagement on the nuclear dossier and other contentious issues between the Islamic Republic and Washington, leveraging its economic influence as a key bargaining chip in negotiations.” 
  • “Like other Gulf Cooperation Council states on the southern littoral of the Persian Gulf, the UAE harbors deep-seated concerns over the potential for military escalation involving the United States, Israel, and Iran. The Emirati delegation seems to be probing whether Tehran is prepared to exit the cycle of strategic confrontation with Washington. Predictably, Iranian officials will likely attribute hostilities to American belligerence. In response, the Emirati envoys may convey the Trump administration’s willingness to offer security guarantees to Tehran, contingent on a cessation of hostilities between the two states.” 

The views represented herein are the author's or speaker's own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AGSI, its staff, or its board of directors.