SAEDNEWS: The U.S. has set conditions like limiting Iran’s missiles, cutting ties with the Axis of Resistance, and ending support for Hezbollah and Iraq’s PMF — demands Tehran rejects, especially after American attacks on its nuclear sites with no guarantees against future aggression.
The Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council said: The U.S. views the negotiating table not as a platform for diplomacy and bilateral dialogue but as a space to extract further concessions, essentially seeking a win–lose deal in their favor rather than adhering to diplomatic principles.
According to Farhikhtegan, Iran seeks reasonable negotiations, but the Americans perceive negotiations as a table for extracting more concessions, albeit through diplomatic language. Within Iran’s internal political atmosphere, some factions constantly stress that Iran must pursue negotiations and agreements with the U.S. to prevent the outbreak of a new war, even at the cost of suspending Iran’s nuclear program.
We Were Seeking Negotiations
Iran had kept the door of diplomacy open and was preparing for a new round of talks in June, when the Zionists violated Iranian airspace, followed by the Americans directly engaging in this blatant aggression and targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Americans themselves burned the negotiating table and narrowed the path of diplomacy. However, after the Zionists were forced to accept a ceasefire, the Americans still insisted that Iran must return to the negotiating table, and the Europeans, through the threat of the trigger mechanism, also sought to drag Iran back to negotiations.
But the reality was that diplomacy was employed to prevent the outbreak of war. Now that this aggression had occurred and the U.S. had carried out its threats, the situation had fundamentally changed. It was no longer possible to speak of negotiations with trust or of achieving results. If negotiations before the aggression were marked by distrust, then after the aggression distrust became an inseparable element of negotiations with the Americans. Nevertheless, after the halt of the 12-day war, Iran declared it would never abandon diplomacy.
Iran continued the first round of talks with the Europeans on activating the trigger mechanism after the war, in Turkey, and at the level of deputy ministers. But regarding negotiations with the Americans, the emphasis was repeatedly made that Iran would come to the table this time with preconditions.
Seyed Abbas Araghchi, in an interview with the Financial Times about whether negotiations with the Americans would begin, said: “Iran is no longer willing to continue the current process of negotiations, because the U.S. was negotiating with Iran but then turned its back on diplomacy and entered into war. They must explain why they attacked us in the middle of negotiations and must guarantee that they will not repeat this action in the future.”
He further said: “The path of negotiation is narrow, but not impossible.” However, both the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other responsible Iranian officials emphasized that Iran would come to the table this time with preconditions. The first condition is that the U.S. must answer why it attacked Iran and, in addition, guarantee that this time it will not attack Iran during the negotiations.
Reliance on Diplomacy to Neutralize Threats Against Iran
Iran’s emphasis on adherence to diplomacy, even in conditions of halted war, is important in several respects. Despite its aggression and attack on Iran, the U.S. always tries to portray Iran as a threat to the region. Iran’s insistence that it seeks to resolve challenges through diplomacy sends a clear message to the world: Iran not only does not want war, but also seeks to manage crises through negotiation. Furthermore, within the country, a specific political faction believes that Iran must prevent the outbreak of war.
Preventing the start of war is only possible through diplomacy. Iran’s green light for implementing diplomacy, while maintaining dignity, also clarifies for that part of public opinion that believes negotiation should be used, that although Iran responds to aggression, it does not welcome war and seeks to use peaceful tools as much as possible to manage tensions.
Of course, while Iran emphasized that the path of negotiation is not closed, it also tried in its media statements not to adopt a position that would make the negotiating party think it could deal with Iran from a position of weakness. Iran’s insistence that this time it would come to the negotiating table with preconditions, and that it would not sit down until the Americans provide guarantees, showed that Iran was trying to keep diplomacy open without closing it completely, but at the same time would not act at the table in line with American wishes or grant them every concession they demanded.
A table for extracting concessions
Despite Iran’s goodwill, the Americans and Europeans view the negotiating table as a means to extract concessions. During negotiations on the activation of the snapback mechanism, the Europeans put three conditions on the table merely in exchange for a possible delay in the mechanism: inspectors must return to Iran, Iran must accept direct negotiations with the U.S. without preconditions, and Iran must reveal where its uranium stockpiles are hidden. These excessive demands were presented only in exchange for a postponement of the snapback—not even its permanent cancellation.
The Europeans continued trying to use the threat of the snapback as a stick to extract concessions from Iran, but Iran, while continuing the talks, emphasized that the Europeans, due to their support for the aggression against Iran’s nuclear facilities and their failure to condemn it, lack the legal legitimacy to speak about the snapback.
The Americans, too, speak of negotiations while constantly emphasizing that they have destroyed Iran’s nuclear facilities. This claim strengthens the impression that even if there were a motive for negotiations, the talks would be conducted from a position of weakness. Altogether, these positions prove that it is Europe and the U.S. who have no genuine interest in negotiations, and that the demands they raise are far from any standard of negotiation, seemingly designed not to be realized. While Iran seeks negotiations from an equal footing, Europe and the U.S. aim to negotiate from a position of weakness to extract excessive concessions; otherwise, negotiations mean nothing to them.
Now shut down the missiles
Amid speculation about negotiations with the U.S., on Tuesday Ali Larijani explicitly stated in a message on X that the Americans have no interest in talks. The Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council wrote in part of his message: “The path to negotiations with the U.S. is not closed; it is the Americans who only talk about negotiations but do not come to the table, and falsely claim that the Islamic Republic refuses to negotiate.”
Raising preconditions such as limiting the range of Iran’s missiles to 500 kilometers, cutting ties with the Axis of Resistance, and halting support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq are naturally demands that Iran will not accept. These demands come at a time when Iran’s nuclear facilities have been directly attacked by the Americans, and there is no guarantee of preventing another act of aggression against Iran.
These demands practically block the path of negotiation, appearing more like conditions designed not to be met. Accepting them after the U.S. aggression and, in their own words, the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program, would mean Iran accepting with its own hands America’s desire to weaken Iran, this time in the defensive domain.
It is clear that Iran will not submit to such threats. However, presenting these conditions clarified several key points: the possibility of negotiating with the U.S. from an equal footing while preserving dignity and interests is nearly impossible, because the Americans see Iran as weakened and only seek to extract further concessions. The proof of America’s unwillingness to negotiate demonstrates that it is not Iran that has overturned the negotiating table or ignored it, but rather the Americans who, because their excessive demands are not met, overturn the table.
The foreign policy basket is not dependent on negotiations
Iran, of course, had previously assessed that negotiations with the U.S. and Europe would not yield clear results. For this reason, it diversified its foreign policy portfolio and turned eastward, moving to strengthen ties with countries such as Russia and China, which themselves have challenges with Europe and the U.S.
After Europe activated its last remaining tool of threat against Iran, the foreign ministries of Iran, Russia, and China signed a joint letter in Tianjin on the sidelines of the Shanghai summit. In part, the letter condemned the U.S. and Europe for their bad faith and emphasized that Europe lacks the legal legitimacy to activate the snapback mechanism.
In addition, Russia prepared a draft within the one-month deadline to prevent activation of the snapback. The signing of this letter and the preparation of the draft prove that Iran will use its powerful allies to confront Europe’s threats and to create a barrier against their excessive demands.
