Arabic → English transcript

An official Iranian source told Tasnim that the details published by the American

press about Tehran’s response are incorrect in key parts, especially regarding

the request to lift U.S. sanctions and to end the war on all fronts.

The source indicated that Tehran’s response

stressed the need to end the war immediately and to ensure that Iran is not

attacked again,

and to end the naval blockade on Iran immediately upon the signing of the initial

understanding with Washington.

And here, some gaps remain between the American vision and the Iranian vision.

The best reflection of the two

visions is the account by Tasnim and the account by Axios,

the two outlets that are at the forefront of narratives

in their unofficial form as conveyed from official sources.

Of course, Axios spoke of a memorandum of understanding of

14 points that begins with a cease- fire as an entry point to the understanding,

without guarantees that the war will not return. It is a cease- fire,

not an end to the war. Here is the fine distinction, ending the war immediately

Tasnim says that, but Axios says cease- fire, while regarding sanctions relief,

according to Tasnim it says lifting sanctions on oil within thirty days,

while Axios focuses on freezing and restricting enrichment for a long period until

it is outside the recognized nuclear cycle. The Tasnim account refers to ending the

naval blockade,

while the Axios account talks about transferring highly enriched uranium

outside Iran. And what is newly added here on this issue related to

uranium is Iran’s condition that this uranium must return if

Washington violates the agreement. In addition to Tasnim talking about Iran’s

participation in managing the Strait of Hormuz. As for Trump, he sees that as

unacceptable, according to what was just reported. Also, if we want to look

at the second page of the comparison between

the two agencies so we can arrange the points of disagreement,

the Iranian proposal starts with ending the war,

and here the point of disagreement includes the sequencing of the agreement,

because the American proposal talks about a cease- fire.

The Iranian proposal says there

is no clear concession of the kind Washington wants on the nuclear file and

the issue of enrichment,

while Washington says it wants a long- term freeze and restriction

and this is where the dispute lies. It also does not explicitly adopt the clause

related to ending the stockpile of uranium,

while the United States focuses on transferring it outside Iran,

and preferably transferring it to the United States,

while the president of the United States insists on getting what he

calls“ nuclear dust,”

his description of highly enriched uranium in Iran, in addition to lifting sanctions

within 30 days,

and here the Americans say this is not tied to the start of implementing

the agreement or to the start of the document, but comes later,

later according to the American mood,

according to the American assessment.

Lifting the blockade— Iran says lifting the blockade and releasing the assets,

and this is an important issue,

the frozen assets worth tens of billions,

reaching estimates that say they amount to 100 billion dollars And maybe more.

While we negotiate, America says," We negotiate over that later."

Iran wants to negotiate later on the nuclear issue.

America says," We will negotiate later on lifting the sanctions and

unfreezing the assets."

America’s priority is to open the corridors and de- escalate tensions,

while Iran wants to manage things with the Americans

or manage things with the region according to its own special security formula

for the Strait of Hormuz, and for it to remain,

in some of the more hard- line Iranian statements, under American administration.