Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Monday that negotiations with Washington have “no meaning” while the United States continues military and economic pressure on Tehran, underscoring the widening gap between both governments despite ongoing diplomatic efforts.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Monday that negotiations with the United States have “no meaning” while Washington continues what he described as daily military, economic and political pressure, signaling a harder public line from Tehran as the U.S.-Iran conflict remains unresolved.
Pezeshkian made the remarks during a meeting in Tehran with Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan, according to Iranian state media.
Iranian media quoted Pezeshkian as questioning the usefulness of negotiations with an adversary that, in his characterization, “terrorizes, sanctions, pressures and threatens on a daily basis.”
The statement reflects the deep distrust between Tehran and Washington after months of warfare, sanctions and intermittent diplomatic contacts.
The language also mirrors accusations President Donald Trump and other U.S. officials have long directed at Iran, with Washington repeatedly describing Tehran as a government that uses terrorism, proxy forces, economic coercion and threats against U.S. interests and regional allies.
Pezeshkian’s remarks therefore highlight the competing narratives now being used by both governments, with each accusing the other of making meaningful diplomacy impossible.
The Iranian president’s comments came days after Trump rejected Tehran’s latest proposal for ending hostilities and warned that large-scale U.S. military operations could resume if Iran does not agree to terms acceptable to Washington.
Trump has repeatedly said he believes Iran wants an agreement.
In recent public comments, he said Tehran was “ready to fold up” and suggested the conflict could be resolved if Iranian leaders accepted a deal quickly.
The White House has continued combining diplomatic pressure with military and economic threats, while Iran has insisted that sanctions relief and changes to U.S. military activity must accompany any broader settlement.
That disagreement has repeatedly stalled mediation efforts.
Recent negotiations involving Gulf intermediaries have focused on reopening and stabilizing transit through the Strait of Hormuz, easing sanctions and establishing a framework for renewed nuclear talks.
Diplomats have struggled over the sequence of those steps and over whether concessions should come before or after Iran changes its military posture.
The conflict has also become increasingly tied to global energy markets.
Iranian attacks and threats around the Strait of Hormuz have disrupted shipping through one of the world’s most important petroleum corridors, while U.S. military operations and sanctions have added additional uncertainty.
Oil flows through the region have recently increased, at times exceeding prewar levels, but crude prices remain elevated and international diesel supplies remain tight.
The war has also produced repeated attacks on U.S. forces and military installations throughout the Middle East.
American troops have been killed and wounded in Iranian drone and missile strikes, while U.S. and allied forces have carried out extensive strikes against targets in Iran and against Iran-aligned forces elsewhere in the region.
Tehran has meanwhile prepared for the possibility of renewed large-scale U.S. attacks.
Iranian officials have warned that any new offensive would be met with a stronger response and potentially a broader range of targets, including U.S. assets and facilities belonging to regional countries supporting American operations.
Those threats have complicated attempts to revive negotiations.
Pezeshkian’s statement Monday did not amount to a formal declaration that Iran would never negotiate with Washington.
Iranian officials have continued to communicate indirectly through mediators, and recent diplomatic efforts have included proposals involving sanctions relief, shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and nuclear restrictions.
His remarks instead underscored Tehran’s position that negotiations cannot be separated from what it considers coercive U.S. actions.
Washington takes the opposite view.
Trump has argued that sustained military and economic pressure is precisely what could force Iran to accept an agreement.
During his September address to the United Nations, Trump warned that the United States could dramatically escalate military operations if diplomacy failed and urged other governments to increase economic pressure on Tehran.
That approach has created a basic contradiction at the center of the diplomatic effort.
The Trump administration views pressure as leverage necessary to produce an agreement.
Iran portrays that same pressure as evidence that Washington is not approaching negotiations in good faith.
Pezeshkian’s Monday statement brought that disagreement into unusually direct terms.
Iranian state media reported him saying that talks with the United States were effectively meaningless while Washington continued imposing sanctions, making threats and conducting military operations.
His comments were published as mediators continue attempting to prevent the current standoff from producing another major escalation.
The conflict has already disrupted international shipping, pushed energy prices higher and expanded military deployments throughout the Middle East.
Trump has left open the possibility of another major round of U.S. strikes if negotiations fail.
Iran, meanwhile, has publicly prepared for an intensified response.
That leaves both governments simultaneously discussing diplomacy and preparing for further military action.
For now, the gap between their public positions remains wide.
Trump says Iran is under mounting pressure and wants a deal.
Pezeshkian says negotiations have “no meaning” while that pressure continues.
The competing statements capture the central obstacle confronting mediators: Washington sees pressure as the path to negotiations, while Tehran increasingly says the pressure itself is what makes negotiations impossible.
Original article
Comments