There is a without ticket passenger at the Geneva railway station waiting for the nuclear train of Iran and, of course, provided that there is goodwill and a change of attitude and, ultimately, the payment of a fine [as penalty for not having a ticket], a seat may well be arranged for him.

The sudden announcement of the participation of William Burns, the third most senior diplomat at the State Department in Washington, in the Geneva talks between Dr Jalili and Mr Solana may perhaps be [due to] the disclosure of the informal letter by Solana and the foreign ministers of the six states of the 5+1 group [the P5+1 representing the five permanent member states of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany] addressed to Jalili, or perhaps it may stem from America's lack of confidence in Solana or, as stated by American officials, to elucidate the stand of the White House on the issue of negotiations. But the important point is that the sensitivity of this round of negotiations has doubled in the light of the participation of America's official representative in the meeting provided, of course, that this participation implies a change in America's attitude and its abstention from [repeating] past mistakes towards the Iranian nation.

Americans always choose the right course of action only after they have tried and tested all the wrong options. This diplomatic proverb is a quick snapshot of America's foreign policy towards Iran in the last 30 years. Three decades after the Islamic Revolution, the Americans have reached the conclusion that they have no choice but to engage in unconditional negotiations with Iran under conditions of mutual respect and on the basis of recognizing the identity and existence of the Islamic Revolution of Iran.

His eminence the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, in his recent speech about the latest negotiations between Iran and Europe placed emphasis on consensus among Iranian officials on this issue and said: The negotiations will move forward if the atmosphere is not overshadowed by a climate of threats. The Europeans must bear in mind that the party with whom they are negotiating is the Iranian nation, and the Iranian nation is a brave nation which dislikes threats, and it will not succumb to any threats either.

But why is the current situation, provided that there is a change in America's attitude and approach, ripe for negotiations?

At the present time there is a strong government in power in Iran which is handling the helm of the country's foreign policy robustly, and it is not prepared to retreat in the slightest manner from its position of upholding the national interests of Iran.