Fars analysis titled “Difficult talks in Geneva, and the French Frog Gunman”: Regarding the round of talks titled round of talks ended in Geneva without signing an agreement. Unfortunately, despite the efforts and goodwill shown by the Iranian side, we again saw no agreement reached in Geneva. Although another round is scheduled to convene shortly, the Western side might want the next round to take advantage of the diplomatic opportunities that have been created. As such, we can clearly see the “destructive involvement of Israel and France in these talks.” Numerous reports were published on events that took place during the difficult talks, but when interpreting the events, we can refer to several points:
- The Iranian negotiating team to the talks, which was referred to by the Supreme Leader as sons of the revolution and emissaries ofIran, have made concerted efforts and have withstood many difficulties, and they should be appreciated for this. It is clear to us that the party responsible for the failure to achieve a result in this round is not the Iranian team. There is, of course, still an opportunity and even if no diplomatic consensus is reached, as the Supreme Leader said, this is in and of itself sufficient.
- The events of the past few days clearly reinforce some of the degrees made by Khamanei. On the first day of the Persian year (21 March 2013), the Supreme Leader warned the French that their policies towards Iransince the Sarkozy period was an incorrect policy. Ahead of 13th of Bahban (US Embassy Takeover Day), Khamenei said that he is not optimistic about the outcome of the talks. Although an optimistic atmosphere pervaded the parties involved, on the third day of the talks, we thoroughly understood why we should not show optimism with regards to the Western side.
- It is clear that despite the ostensible disagreements between Washingtonand Tel-Aviv, there is no strategic dispute between the two countries regardingIran. The maximum disagreement between the two is purely tactical, which the Zionists have also apparently countered by influencing the French side. The dispute between Netanyahu and Kerry is purely a dispute around the lifting of fewer or more sanctions.
- The French role in the last round of talks in Geneva was, on the one hand, destructive and, on the other hand, vague. The French government, which is in a political fall, resembled in these talks to “a frog that pulls out a pistol and thinks that it is important and strong.” At the same time, we are not so naïve to think that the French alone could block the talks. In order to prevent the collapse of the sanctions, the French joined forces with the US government in an agreement reached behind the scenes or directly, and in conjunction with the Zionist regime and its lobbies.
- The Western side knows full well that the talks from the Iranian side are being seriously handled and that there is a national consensus, as part of the strategy that was defined by the Supreme Leader. If they fail to take advantage of this opportunity and keep sanctions in place, they will guarantee to encounter similar behavior.
- Iran’s history has always been accompanied by a strong stance against opposing forces and those who wish to impose their will. Netanyahu, Obama and Hollande do not need to doubt this since this facet of Iranian identity has continued, is continuing and will continue in the future.