From the Assassination to the Ten Conditions
Mehdi Khanalizadeh’s account of the hidden aspects of post-war negotiations (Part 1)
Mehdi Khanalizadeh, a media member of the Iranian negotiating team, frankly reviewed the behind-the-scenes opposition of the Leadership to the course of the negotiations, and how the agreement was passed by the Supreme National Security Council. According to his account, the Leader was fundamentally opposed to the principle of the negotiation process, addressing the negotiating team by saying: "
There is no good in these negotiations, neither for your worldly life nor for your hereafter."
The Usual American Trick: Assassination, Then a Request for a Ceasefire
From the very first moments following the assassination of the martyred commander, the United States came forward with a request for a ceasefire. The American trick lay in striking first, then pretending to want a ceasefire to force Iran into submission and achieve its own interests—a proposal that remained suspended until the election of the new leader.
Back-and-Forth Between the National Security Council and the Leadership
The Supreme National Security Council initially prepared a 5-point draft for dialogue, but the Leadership rejected it. This back-and-forth persisted for about 3 or 4 times until, ultimately and based on the Leader's own vision, a 10-point plan was drafted (which is the exact same statement announced on the night of the ceasefire).
The Main Red Line: A Ban on Nuclear Negotiations
On the sidelines of the ten points, the Leader penned 8 additional conditions and emphasized that they must be implemented; the most prominent of which was a ban on entering into any nuclear negotiations in any shape or form. The American side, which was in dire need of a ceasefire, accepted the ten conditions, to the point that Trump tweeted stating that the basis of the process was the Iranian conditions. However, in Islamabad, things turned completely upside down...