TEHRAN – Kamal Kharrazi, head of state-run Strategic Council on Foreign Relations think tank, says Iran has not closed all doors for “indirect negotiations” with the United States in order to assess Washington’s views, declare its conditions and adopt a proper decision.

Kharrazi says the American officials are sending contradictory messages by threatening either “war or negotiations”  with Iran.

“What is seen today in American officials’ behavior is a psychological warfare or inspiration of the policy of ‘either war or negotiations’ through sending contradictory messages,” said the veteran diplomat who served as Iran’s foreign minister from 1997 to 2005.

The senior foreign policy official also pointed to Donald Trump’s letter to Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, saying, “The recent position of Mr. Trump and the vague references of certain American officials to his letter and its widespread coverage in Western and regional media are intended to create a kind ‘delusional optimism’, state of indecision and also atmosphere of bipolarity in the country (Iran) in a way that some inside the country think that an opening has been created to resolve the historical problems between Iran and the U.S. and Trump is sincerely seeking to amend relations with Iran, but of course it has opponents within the American ruling structure. ”

On what is the Trump administration’s real approach toward Iran, he said, “The American strategy is invitation to dialogue under the shadow of the intensification of economic sanctions and military threats with the aim of pressing Iran to give in to a dialogue that neither its principles are clear nor it (Iran) can trust the promises and signatures of the opposite side based on the past experiences. The result of such a strategy is nothing other than imposing the will of one side on the other in a state of intimidation and threat.”

Chief of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations added, “If Mr. Trump knew about Iran and the Iranian spirit, took lessons from the past, and sincerely or even in a transactional way was after the economic interest of his country and sought to resolve the historical problems between Iran and America, he had behaved in a different way.”

Kharrazi cited four reasons that President Trump could approach Iran:

1. He understood the spirit of Iranians, who, due to their thousands of years of civilizational history, would never accept humiliation and would not submit to threats and pressures from foreigners, just as they stood against the heavily armed Baath regime of Iraq, supported by all powers, including the United States, and liberated their land.

2. He knew that the spirit of bravery and valor among Iranians would not allow them to tolerate the arrogance and bullying of others; however, when they see humility and sincerity from the other side, they respond accordingly.

3. He acknowledged that Islamic Iran had not only managed to overcome war, political pressure, and economic sanctions but had also established itself as a regional power, strengthening its foundations of security and independence. Therefore, he concluded that it was unwise to engage in a power struggle with such a country.

4. Instead of repeating past mistakes, he sincerely accepted the principles governing a genuine negotiation, namely equality, mutual respect, and avoidance of threats and pressure. By doing so, he gained the trust of Iranians who sought a fair negotiation rather than arrogance and coercion.

“However,” he said, “the reality is that the new and inexperienced American officials lack a historical memory of the failures of past approaches and continue to repeat their bullying positions. They believe they can draw us into negotiations where the outcome has already been predetermined.”

Kharrazi concluded by stating that “the Islamic Republic of Iran has not closed all doors; rather, it is prepared for indirect negotiations to assess the other side, announce its conditions, and make appropriate decisions.”