US-Israel and Iran Conflict: Iran’s Rejection of US Talks Reflects Deep Distrust
Image source, EPA/Shutterstock
This week, US President Donald Trump claimed there was a “very good and productive dialogue” aimed at ending the war between the US and Iran. However, Iran’s immediate response was a clear rejection of this claim.
Iranian officials have denied any such talks took place. A military spokesperson sarcastically remarked that the US is negotiating not with Iran but among themselves.
The gap is evident. Washington speaks of progress; Tehran promptly rejects it. This is not merely a disagreement but a reflection of profound distrust.
This mistrust stems from recent events.
Throughout the past year, conversations between the two sides had kindled hope for reducing tensions. In their final phase, mediators from Oman announced that the US’s main concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program had been addressed.
Yet, following these efforts, Israeli and US military forces launched attacks against Iran.
Iran’s Perspective
From Iran’s viewpoint, talks have not diminished the possibility of war; rather, war is already underway. Therefore, President Trump’s assertions are viewed with skepticism.
However, Iran’s refusal does not equate to outright opposition to dialogue. Much remains unresolved.
Even officials cooperating diplomatically find themselves under pressure. Attempting talks again is risky, and there are no signs this time will be different.
This context helps explain the stern tone from Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and other officials.
On Monday, prior to Trump’s Truth Social post, Araghchi stated that Iran is neither seeking talks nor ceasefire, and is ready to continue fighting.
The head of Iran’s government’s information council rejected a 15-point proposal, saying, “Trump’s words are false and not worthy of attention.”
Yet, this does not imply that all doors are closed.
On Wednesday afternoon, Araghchi neither confirmed nor fully rejected the proposal.
He told state TV, “Various opinions have been sent to the country’s top leaders and if a decision is to be made, it will certainly be done.”
He also confirmed Iran’s policy remains one of continuous defense, and currently, Tehran has no intention to engage in negotiations.
Airstrikes continue in Iran, causing long-term damage to critical infrastructure. The use of harsh language could be intended more to strengthen negotiating conditions than to reject talks outright.
This has complicated Iran’s internal political dynamics.
President Masoud Pezeshkian, backed by moderate groups, has adopted a cautious stance. Hardline factions oppose any talks.
Currently, even moderate voices find it difficult to argue in favor of negotiations under the present circumstances.
There is also external pressure on the government.
Some opposition groups refuse any agreement with the Islamic Republic and support the attacks hoping that war will lead to a change in power.
Meanwhile, activists within civil society and the human rights community express concern that any agreement could facilitate government repression, especially as wartime sanctions have already tightened.
Iran’s situation is not only ideological but also strategic.
Amid escalating conflict, Tehran has demonstrated the capability to disrupt global energy supplies by targeting the Strait of Hormuz. If this key route is closed or restricted, it would impact oil and gas markets as well as wider supply chains.
This provides Iran significant leverage. Maintaining a firm public stance helps sustain that pressure.
Image source, Reuters
President Donald Trump reportedly conveyed a proposal to Iran via Pakistan. The terms of the proposal appear difficult for Iran to accept. They impose strict limits on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, missile programs, and support for regional allies. In exchange, the US offers sanctions relief and cooperation on civilian nuclear energy.
Even those willing to negotiate view trust as the biggest obstacle. Previous agreements, like the 2015 nuclear deal after years of talks between Iran and world powers, ultimately failed.
At that time, under the Trump administration, the US withdrew unilaterally from the deal. This has led many in Tehran to doubt that any new agreement would be durable.
Thus, the gulf between the two sides is widening.
For Washington, speaking of progress may serve political and diplomatic objectives.
For Tehran, rejecting talks preserves their position and reflects legitimate doubts.
At present, a gap between US hopes and Iranian rejection likely remains.
Bridging this gap requires more than words; dialogue must provide certainty to keep conflict at bay.
President Donald Trump may also need to demonstrate this, as he promised to end, not start, a war in the Middle East.
We also provide news content on Nepali YouTube. To subscribe to our channel and watch published videos, click here. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. In addition, you can listen to Nepali Service programs Monday through Friday at 8:45 PM on radio.