Iran Right to Distrust US: American Analyst

“Ayatollah Khamenei certainly has the right to not trust US intentions based on the long history,” Jim W. Dean, the managing editor of VeteransToday.com, told Tasnim in an interview.

“One cannot even trust that Trump is sincere in wanting negotiations. He might be doing this just for show so he can claim in his 2020 election campaign that ‘he did all he could do but Iran refused to talk,” he added.

Jim Dean is a regular geopolitical commentator on various media outlets around the world. He and Sr. Editor Gordon Duff have begun their own bridge building campaign with Iranian university youth via Skype conferences. Jim comes from an old military family going back to the American Revolution.

Following is the full text of the interview:

Tasnim: On Tuesday, Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei deplored the US’ calls for talks with Iran as a trick and said Tehran will not negotiate bilaterally or multilaterally with Washington at any level. What do you think about Ayatollah Khamenei's remarks?

Dean: Ayatollah Khamenei certainly has the right to not trust US intentions based on the long history. But if there are no talks then the chances for a resolution are basically zero. How does that benefit Iran? The sanctions continue as does the demonizing of Iran as the devil of the Mideast when much of the world thinks Israel and its big brother the US fill that role.

One of the tenants of diplomacy is to “always engage” as talks are a learning and diffusing tensions process. The negotiators you are dealing with now can be replaced by negotiators from a new administration who wants to show it is different from the past. When there are no talks, the fuse for war burns faster. This must be avoided.

Tasnim: Iran sees the United States’ calls for negotiation as a trick and part of the so-called “maximum pressure” campaign which has failed to force the Islamic Republic to give in to US demands. How do you assess Iran's policy of “active resistance” against the US pressures?

Dean: The policy will not have worked until Trump could get Iran to accept changing the JCPOA. Israel, the NeoCons and Trump want Iran to not have a retaliatory strike capability if someone would be stupid enough to hit Iran first. Israelis and criminal Western governments love to negotiate with countries that cannot defend themselves.

The US breaking the JCPOA and sanctions move was mainly one of triggering more and more dissatisfaction with the long suffering Iranian people to undermine the current leadership politically.

The US is trying to say to Iranians that the leadership is their enemy, not the US. I think the Iranian people see through that fraud. If the US or Israel attack Iran its people will be united even more as they were in the Iraq war.

Tasnim: Iran has said the US' return to the 2015 nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and the removal of sanctions against the Islamic Republic is the only way that Washington can hold talks with Tehran. How do you see the prospects of open diplomacy between Iran and the US as well as the other parties to the JCPOA?

Dean: This is a very reasonable position by Iran. The US broke the deal. It is in violation, not Iran, which the IAEA has backed up. The US accepts that Iran has been compliant despite Israeli continued charges that Iran has a secret nuclear program while Israel has the major unclaimed weapons of mass destruction stockpile in the region.

One cannot even trust that Trump is sincere in wanting negotiations. He might be doing this just for show so he can claim in his 2020 election campaign that “he did all he could do but Iran refused to talk”.

The flip side of that coin is a new president might emerge after the election where a fresh start could be made on trying to resolve the issue. But the risk is that during that period the ticking time bomb in the Mideast could blow up.

Tasnim: Can we regard the Islamic Republic's strategy of “active resistance” against the US pressures as successful?

Dean: This is an easy question. Iran has avoided a shooting war, so far, so it has been successful. But we still see ongoing threats through the multiple plots being devised and deployed to trigger a war indirectly. The current situation with the Aramco attack is a classic example. Trump recently said that he is waiting for Saudi’s evaluation as to who was responsible for the attack and what their desired response would be because they would have to pay for it. Analysts quickly sensed that Trump wanted the Saudis to be responsible for any ensuing response disaster, not the US, a classic Trump move of leaving the other guy to take the blame. This is a very dangerous time for us all. We pray for deliverance from our tormentors.