TEHRAN - In an analysis, Kayhan addressed Trump's dual policy towards Iran and wrote: If Trump intended to conclude a treaty with Iran within the framework of international principles and laws, he should have behaved in a way that the beginning and process of negotiations were based on the principles of international law.

For example, instead of issuing a national security memorandum to implement sanctions more strictly, he could have taken a practical step towards lifting the sanctions as the first step. That is, he should have at least shown that the atmosphere governing the negotiations is not one of threats and pressure, but rather one of respect and dialogue based on equality. What Trump has currently referred to as the "subject of negotiations" is simply the issue of Iran not obtaining a nuclear weapon. This was not the case during his first term as president. Immediately after signing the document of his withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018, Mike Pompeo set 12 conditions for initiating negotiations with Iran. But this time, they first set conditions and then proposed an agreement!

Jam-e-Jam: Importance of Iran-Turkey regional cooperation

In an article, Jam-e-Jam discussed the recent visit of the Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs to Ankara and wrote: The role of influential countries such as Iran and Turkey and continuous consultations between the two countries are very important. Given their common interests on many regional issues, the two countries can also pave the way for sustainable development in the region. Turkey, as a bridge between Asia and Europe, has extensive opportunities to increase economic relations with Iran. Likewise, Iran, with its rich energy resources, economic capacities, and strategic geographical location, can play an important role in meeting Turkey's needs. In general, the continuation of consultations between Iranian and Turkish officials at high levels and the establishment of cooperation mechanisms in various fields will not only contribute to the interests of the two countries but can also be effective in creating regional stability and security. Ankara and Tehran, as two regional powers, can play a key role in helping to promote regional peace and development through active diplomacy and constructive cooperation.

Arman-e-Emrooz: Negotiations with America; too far, too close

Arman-e-Emrooz discussed the issue of negotiations with America in an interview with Dr. Salaheddin Harsani, an international affairs analyst. He said: Iran's position of "no to negotiations" is not an official position, but rather a declaration and a tactical one. Also, the decision not to negotiate or talk with America does not mean readiness to negotiate with Europe, because Europe is not allowed to negotiate with Iran due to Trump's repeated warnings. Trump had said that anyone who agrees with Iran will be punished and sanctioned by us. In addition, if Europe is willing to negotiate with Iran, it must also take into account the interests of Israel. That is, the conditions for Europe's negotiations with Iran are to take into account the interests of America and Israel. Given the geopolitics of the demands, it would be better for the country's decision-makers to turn Trump's declared and tactical threats into opportunities in the form of a calculated and rational negotiation, and prepare the situation to improve public living conditions. The conditions for negotiation are so closer than we expected.

Farhikhtegan: Where will the enthusiasm for negotiations lead?

In a note, Farhikhtegan dealt with the reformists' enthusiasm for negotiations at any cost. It wrote: Trump signed his second memorandum in support of maximum pressure against Iran. The logic of those who pay attention to international relations from an idealistic point of view is that peace can be established in the world by encouraging political systems. Though a large percentage of politicians who are eager to negotiate are idealists, their claims and statements sometimes even go beyond idealistic boundaries. While the U.S. President's two memorandums have focused on Iran's vital issues and practically targeted its existence, some reformists are trying to say that nothing new has happened in this memorandum. Some politicians insist on paving the way for negotiations, and for this reason, they are distorting and interpreting Trump's memorandum. If Trump explicitly states that negotiations must result in the closure of Iran's missile and military programs, will they still accept it?