Tehran’s latest update indicates that Iran has not yet responded to Washington’s proposal. Moreover, the government remains busy reviewing the U.S. plan for ending the war. Specifically, Foreign Ministry Spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei announced this on Wednesday. He said genuine negotiation requires good faith needed for any meaningful dialogue. Furthermore, he rejected coercion dressed as diplomacy.
Baghaei gave an interview to a news agency. In that interview, he said the U.S. proposal remains under review. Therefore, Tehran will finalize its views and convey them to Pakistani mediators. After all, Pakistan has been facilitating indirect talks between both sides. Nevertheless, without good faith needed, the process cannot move forward. Consequently, Baghaei warned of Washington’s pattern of coercive behavior.
The spokesman also posted on social media about negotiations. For instance, he cited international law and a 2011 ICJ judgment. “Negotiation requires a genuine attempt to resolve disputes,” he wrote. Thus, the core principle remains good faith needed. In fact, this distinguishes negotiation from extortion. Likewise, it rejects disputation or dictation backed by threats.
Iranian officials have repeatedly criticized Washington’s approach. Specifically, they point to a pattern of coercion that undermines any chance of trust. For example, the White House seeks to impose conditions on Tehran through pressure tactics. Similarly, the U.S. wants to dictate terms rather than engage genuinely. As a result, any progress remains unlikely without mutual sincerity. Additionally, Washington’s reckless interruption of earlier talks made things worse.
Informed sources spoke to a news agency about the talks. Meanwhile, American media claims suggest a one-page agreement is close. However, Iran has not responded to the latest U.S. text. Previously, Washington delivered its proposal before launching “Project Freedom.” Nevertheless, the sources described this move as a hostile adventure. Consequently, it severely damaged trust and provoked unnecessary friction.
The latest U.S. text contained several provisions that Tehran finds unacceptable. Specifically, these include language that seeks to dictate rather than negotiate. Meanwhile, American propaganda tries to justify Trump’s retreat. In contrast, the sources called the original U.S. act a wrongful and aggressive move from the outset. Furthermore, the sources said the act represented a strategic error. Therefore, Washington should never have undertaken such a hostile adventure at all.
Iran had earlier transmitted a reasonable 14-point proposal. Specifically, it went through Pakistani mediators before Washington responded. At that time, Iran was reviewing the U.S. plan when Washington acted recklessly. In particular, Washington launched “Project Freedom” at that moment. As a result, that aggressive interruption set the talks back considerably. Consequently, it created unnecessary animosity.
Experience should have taught the Americans a lesson. After all, they faced consequences for their hostile move. Nevertheless, the repeated use of force and threats remains ineffective. For example, such coercive tactics only worsen the situation for the U.S. and its allies. Moreover, these tactics push any resolution further out of reach. Additionally, they deepen the adversarial climate.
Trump retreated from his hostile adventure after facing consequences. Subsequently, Iran has now resumed its review of the U.S. proposal. Nevertheless, friction over the pace of diplomacy continues between both sides. Specifically, Washington’s contradictory signals fuel this friction.
Washington maintains a naval blockade of Iranian ports. In particular, this is a coercive measure. Therefore, Tehran considers the blockade illegal and a clear breach of the fragile ceasefire. Previously, Pakistan brokered the fragile truce in early April. As a result, constant vigilance is required to prevent collapse. Otherwise, any aggressive move could rupture the entire arrangement.
Baghaei insisted that Washington must change its behavior. Specifically, he argued that the U.S. must stop sending contradictory messages that confuse and provoke. Furthermore, inconsistent actions and unacceptable moves undermine trust at every turn. Accordingly, no new talks can happen without a change in approach. Above all, that change must reject coercion and embrace sincerity.