In a commentary, the Keyhan newspaper analyzed Donald Trump’s letter to the Leader of the Islamic Revolution for negotiations.

It said this is the umpteenth time a U.S. president has sent a letter to the Iranian Leader. Unlike previous oral and written letters from U.S. presidents to the Iranian leadership, Trump's letter to the Leader was not done secretly or without public announcement. Rather, for the first time, Trump himself made this matter public. Even when, according to an American official, the letter had not been sent to Tehran it was made public. It was for this reason that Iranian officials declared they had not received such a letter. This action means destroying the letter. Trump's mistake is that in the field of negotiations, he is not only result-oriented but also likes the process. Trump's goal with this action is to throw the ball back to Iran's court. Before this, when Trump signed the presidential memorandum to restore the maximum pressure, he requested to negotiate with Iran. At the time, the Leader of the Revolution rejected negotiations in the most explicit way possible, saying talks will not be  "wise, intelligent, and honorable."

Jam-e-Jam:  Negotiations with America won’t produce results

In a commentary, Jam-e-Jam addressed America’s breach of promise and illusionary trust in the U.S. by some pro-Americans at home. The paper said: America’s recent behavior shows that it always prefers its interests over everything else and is willing to humiliate even its allies. This incident is a lesson for supporters of negotiations with America, the most important of which is that negotiation with America do not yield results. The Leader has repeatedly emphasized that negotiations with America not only do not resolve the country’s problems but may also lead to an imposition of America’s demands and national humiliation. The recent behavior of the U.S. toward Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky is a clear example of this reality. On the other side, negotiators with America should know that talks with America are not sustainable. The result of such negotiations always prove detrimental to the weaker party because America is unwilling to accept the rights of other countries. Some believe that negotiations can reduce pressure and result in quick gains, but these compromises are temporary and will end up to the country’s detriment in the long run.

Hamshahri: What will be the quality of Iran’s response to Trump’s letter?

Hamshahri discussed Trump’s letter to Iran in an interview with Farshid Bagherian, an expert on international affairs. He said: Speculation about Trump’s direct letter to the Leader of the Revolution continue in domestic and international media outlets and political circles, while attention should be focused more than anything else on Iran’s reaction to the letter. Trump is cleverly trying to create a gap between the government and the people inside Iran. He wants to create an image in people’s minds that America is seeking negotiations and reconciliation, while Iran is to blame for failing to reciprocate. Assuming that this letter has reached Iran, the Leader of the Revolution will not respond to it. If Iran is to respond to the letter, it will be within a structural framework. For example, the Islamic Republic’s conditions for negotiations will be set by the government or the Supreme National Security Council. On the other side, if there is no response to this letter, it will mean emphasizing no negotiations with the United States.

Farhikhtegan: A common goal and two opposing solutions over CCW

In an article, Farhikhtegan dealt with the dispute between supporters and opponents of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) in the parliament and wrote: The main dispute between supporters and opponents of joining the CCW is whether this convention can benefit Iran or will end up damaging to the Islamic Republic. Supporters see it as an opportunity for active diplomacy and reducing pressure, while opponents see it as a step towards surrendering to the will of the United States and limiting defense capabilities. The key point is that both sides acknowledge that these treaties are under the influence of the West but propose different solutions. Supporters back limited involvement, and opponents see any international commitment as dangerous. The impact of Trump's executive memorandum has also added to this ambiguity.