US President Donald Trump's latest remarks on Iran, which downplayed the likelihood of military conflict and suggested possible dialogue, have prompted some Tehran insiders to favor direct talks and a potential agreement with his administration.
“This time Trump is completely different from before. There were [people like] John Bolton and [Mike] Pompeo before and he had radicals [around him],” Ahmad Bakhshayesh-Ardestani, a member of the Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee told the Iranian Labour News Agency (ILNA) Tuesday.
Last week, President Trump expressed hope that a deal on Iran's nuclear program would eliminate the need for the US to support an Israeli attack on Iran.
"It would really be nice if that could be worked out without having to go that further step ... Iran hopefully will make a deal, and if they don't make a deal, I guess that's okay too," Trump said.
Last week, Trump terminated Secret Service protection for former national security advisor John Bolton, former secretary of state Mike Pompeo, and former special envoy for Iran Brian Hook, despite alleged threats from Iran against their lives. This decision has drawn criticism from some Republicans.
Bakhshayesh-Ardestani also argued that Trump’s approach and way of thinking about conflicts in the world have changed because he wants to tell the world that he has the power to go to war but wants to solve the problems without resorting to force.
He also argued that Trump has adopted a new approach to the Islamic Republic because he has realized that Iran does not seek a nuclear bomb. “Trump’s focus is on Iran for not having nuclear weapons. Iran considers nuclear weapons to be religiously forbidden,” he said, adding that this means an agreement between the two sides is possible.
He was apparently referring to an alleged fatwa by Supreme Leader Ali kHamenei many years ago. However, analysts argue that the so-called fatwa is merely an advisory opinion rather than a binding legal decree. They argue it was intended to mislead the international community about the true intentions of a nuclear program that Tehran insists is peaceful.
In late December, Bakhshayesh-Ardestani had said that an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would effectively allow the Islamic Republic to move toward developing nuclear weapons.
Speaking to the moderate conservative Entekhab news website in Tehran on Monday, a former Iranian diplomat at the UN, Kourosh Ahmadi, described “the tone and content of the words that Trump has spoken about Iran after taking office” as “more diplomatic than hostile.”
“Firstly, he has only talked about negotiation and agreement [with Iran], and secondly, his tone is mostly calm and there is no threatening rhetoric,” he said.
Ahmadi suggested that Trump's stance has increased the likelihood that he plans to "officially propose negotiations as the first step in relations with Iran, rather than focusing on threats or pressure."
The former diplomat also advised Iranian authorities to view Trump’s statements as an indication of his openness to negotiating with Tehran before exploring other options.
President Masoud Pezeshkian and officials of his administration including Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi say Tehran is open to and prepared for talks with the Trump administration, but it is unclear to what extent they are willing to be flexible. Trump also has not officially reveal his next steps toward Tehran.
Other Iranian officials, including Pezeshkian’s Special Envoy in Maritime Economy, Ali Abdolalizadeh, have in recent weeks indicated that the “governance” has concluded that there must be direct talks between the US and Iran.
In the parlance of the Islamic Republic, terms like "governance" or "system" are frequently used to refer to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. In 2018, Khamenei stated that the Islamic Republic would never engage in negotiations with the US, specifically not with the Trump administration.
In mid-January, a senior figure in Khamenei’s office claimed that the Supreme Leader’s anti-American remarks in a speech were not meant to rule out negotiations if the positions of the two sides of a dispute align.