Note: This article summarizes publicly reported facts from multiple news sources including BBC. The content has been independently rewritten for informational purposes only.
Iran has set a clear condition before agreeing to resume diplomatic talks with the United States: Washington must publicly guarantee that it will refrain from any further military strikes on Iranian territory. This demand was articulated by Iran’s deputy foreign minister, Majid Takht-Ravanchi, during an interview in which he emphasized that trust has been severely eroded after recent US air raids.
Takht-Ravanchi explained that while the Trump administration has communicated a desire to return to negotiations through intermediaries, it has failed to clarify its stance on the “critical issue” of additional attacks. According to him, this ambiguity undermines the credibility of any future dialogue.
“The United States says it wants diplomacy,” he said, “yet it carries out strikes on our nuclear facilities. This is not the basis for constructive engagement. No country can be expected to negotiate under threat.”
These remarks followed a series of events that destabilized efforts to restart dialogue. On June 13, Israeli forces conducted an extensive operation targeting Iranian-backed positions. This offensive disrupted the planned sixth round of indirect negotiations in Muscat, which had been scheduled just two days later.
Shortly afterward, the United States escalated the situation by launching air raids on three Iranian nuclear sites. While US officials justified the strikes as defensive measures, Tehran interpreted them as proof that Washington is not genuinely committed to a peaceful resolution.
Political analysts note that this dynamic—where maximum pressure coincides with the suggestion of dialogue—has become a defining feature of the US approach toward Iran. “The talks were close to resuming,” said Reza Vahidi, a Tehran-based analyst. “But mixing threats with diplomacy makes it nearly impossible for Iran to participate without appearing to compromise its sovereignty.”
Iranian authorities have consistently stated they are not opposed to negotiation but will not engage under conditions that jeopardize their security. Takht-Ravanchi underscored that Iran has no interest in conflict, but reserves the right to respond to aggression. “We are not seeking war,” he said. “However, we will defend ourselves if attacked.”
Since the US withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal, tensions have steadily risen, punctuated by sanctions and intermittent confrontations. Iran maintains its nuclear program is peaceful and insists that any return to talks must be grounded in mutual respect.
The Muscat meeting was seen as a chance to reestablish communication channels. Diplomats familiar with the negotiations reported that initial agreements on inspections and gradual sanctions relief had been drafted. The sudden collapse of the process demonstrates how quickly progress can unravel when trust is lacking.
European governments have voiced concern that escalation between Washington and Tehran could spill over into broader regional instability. The European Union has attempted quiet mediation, but results have been limited.
In Iran, public skepticism of US intentions has grown. Recent surveys indicate that most Iranians believe Washington is unlikely to keep its commitments. This perception makes it politically difficult for Iranian leaders to return to the table without concrete assurances.
Takht-Ravanchi concluded by reaffirming Iran’s willingness to engage if the US adopts a more credible approach. “We remain open to dialogue,” he said, “but the United States must show it respects international law and Iran’s sovereignty.”
For now, both sides remain locked in a stalemate. Without a breakthrough, the prospects of renewed confrontation—and deeper instability—are rising by the day.