Tehran ready for serious dialogue with US but mutual respect, reciprocal commitments necessary: Iranian envoy (IANS interview)

New Delhi, Oct 6 (IANS) Iran’s Ambassador to India, Mohammad Fathali, on Tuesday said that Tehran is ready for a “serious dialogue” with the United States to resolve the ongoing conflict but a lasting agreement cannot be reached through pressure, threats or military action.

In an exclusive interview with the IANS, Ambassador Fathali underscored that the Iranian government has always maintained that issues between both countries should be resolved through dialogue and diplomacy.

“To produce a result, dialogue must rest on mutual respect, reciprocal commitments and a reliable path for diplomacy. At present, the two sides differ on some fundamental issues, including how to end the conflict and the lifting of restrictions and sanctions. Iran is ready for serious dialogue and for a balanced, implementable agreement. But a lasting agreement cannot be reached through pressure, threats or military action,” said Fathali while reacting to reports about US President Donald Trump expecting further talks with Iran this week.

“If the US genuinely seeks a diplomatic solution, it must create conditions in which both sides’ commitments are implemented simultaneously and verifiably. Within such a framework, progress is possible. However, it is not possible to prejudge the outcome of the negotiations or the achievement of a definitive agreement,” he added.

As the situation remains volatile, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has made it clear that “there is no military solution” to the conflict with the US.

Ambassador Fathali insists that Iran has not closed the door to diplomacy and is ready for serious dialogue based on mutual interests and reciprocal commitments. However, he made it clear that there is no scope for pressure, threats and military action while calling for negotiations.

“The problem, unfortunately, is that what the US side presents as ‘negotiation’ often amounts, in practice, to accepting unilateral demands. That approach is not acceptable to us. We do not reject genuine, balanced negotiations based on mutual respect, but negotiations cannot mean imposing one side’s demands on the other… If the genuine objective is a diplomatic solution, conditions must be created for negotiations on an equal footing, with respect for the legitimate rights and interests of both sides,” he maintains.

Earlier this week, an IRGC commander claimed that US forces have been “forced” to retreat about 1,000 km from Iran’s borders. At the same time, after Iraq, Iranian lawmaker Abdolhossein Rouholamini has called for the US to withdraw its military forces from the entire region.

“The IRGC commander’s statements reflect the fact that the US military presence in the region is undergoing changes. The principled position of the Islamic Republic of Iran on foreign forces in the region is clear. We believe regional security should be ensured by the countries of the region, through cooperation among themselves, and not through the presence of extra-regional forces,” the Iranian Ambassador to India mentioned.

“The countries of this region have lived alongside one another for thousands of years and have always addressed their issues through interaction and cooperation. The experience of past decades has also shown that the presence and intervention of extra-regional forces have not created lasting security. They have themselves been among the factors increasing tension and insecurity. We believe the countries of the region have the capacity and the responsibility to ensure their own security.”

Certain reports have also suggested that the flow of crude from the Persian Gulf has recovered to near-prewar levels, but the supplies are largely bypassing the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranian Ambassador, however, dismissed claims of oil flows returning to pre-war levels.

“The claim that crude flows from the Persian Gulf have returned to pre-war levels has been made mainly by the American side and some shipping-monitoring institutions. In practice, this does not necessarily mean that oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz have increased. Part of the supply reduction has been offset by releases from strategic oil reserves, and another part by greater use of alternative routes. The relative balance now seen in the market therefore cannot be read as a return of Hormuz flows to pre-war levels,” he commented.

“These alternative routes can make up part of the shortfall in the short term. But their capacity and efficiency cannot be compared with those of the Strait of Hormuz, and they cannot replace this vital route in the long term. If supplies of oil and petroleum products had truly returned to pre-war levels, why have oil prices not done the same? And why do fuel prices in the United States remain high and even continue to rise? What we are witnessing is a form of temporary management and compensation for the shortfall, not a genuine return of the energy market to pre-war conditions,” said Ambassador Fathali.

–IANS

/as