TEHRAN (Iran News) The outcome of the three-and-a-half-hour meeting, as presented to public opinion, was described by both sides as “desirable progress.” The very use of the word “desirable” itself gave rise to several concerns.

First – Confidentiality versus Transparency:

There is a specific international standard practice in sensitive negotiations whereby negotiating teams require a secure environment to bargain in order to reach a final framework, protected from media sensationalism and pressure from interest groups.

Domestic critics in Iran have repeatedly criticized the nuclear negotiating team for not publicly announcing certain technical details or side agreements (such as the level of cooperation with the Agency or expanded access). This issue has consistently turned into speculation, investigative reporting, and serious debate in Iran’s internal discussions.

However, it must be noted that confidentiality versus transparency in diplomacy creates a permanent tension between the need for secrecy to ensure successful negotiations and the obligation of transparency toward public opinion.

Negotiating teams usually argue that disclosing step-by-step details can weaken bargaining power.

A large portion of the negotiations concerned technical nuclear issues that were not understandable to the general public and likely required interpretation—ambiguities such as the disastrous experience of the snapback mechanism triggered by an unknown individual named Francesco as a result of the treacherous JCPOA.

Fundamental difference in legal and security status:

The Francesco case is generally defined within the framework of intelligence and security operations. Such cases typically have operational and espionage aspects, and the failure to disclose them in a timely manner often stems from legal violations or espionage concerns.

The main debate inside Iran concerns the transparency of the negotiating team toward governing institutions and the people; otherwise, Muscat or Geneva makes little difference in terms of preserving negotiation objectives.

Second – Concern about the unofficial status of the American team:

This raises the question of why we, too, did not introduce an unofficial team. When negotiations continue with an unofficial team—whose presence in talks of such importance has no documented proof beyond media announcements—while Marco Rubio and Vance, who are official members of Donald Trump’s government, each present their own interpretations of the negotiations in the media, ambiguity is inevitable.

Third – Contradictory signals in the media:

On one hand, we hear about the sensational transfer of warships and aircraft to the region during the negotiations, creating the impression that Iran has come to the negotiating table out of fear and compulsion, speaking under fire. On the other hand, there appears to be a retreat by Trump’s team from all previous propaganda and an acceptance of only one of the twelve previously declared conditions—limited solely to the nuclear issue.

This ambiguous retreat suggests that the American team’s intention may be to buy time and resolve its own domestic issues. Otherwise, what is the meaning of negotiations that are first indirect, second limited solely to the nuclear framework, and third conducted without the presence of official authorities?

Fourth – The authority to lift sanctions:

Everyone knows that lifting a large portion of the sanctions is essentially not within the direct authority of the U.S. government in a way that could serve as a basis for diplomatic bargaining. Before entering the session, the Iranian delegation should have clarified the scope of authority regarding sanctions relief under the Trump administration and brought the nation into alignment on this issue, so that we would not later be accused of negligent bargaining.

During the JCPOA era, the lengthy duration of negotiations led to accusations that the Foreign Ministry team was manufacturing trips for the sake of per diem benefits. Given Abbas Araghchi’s vague remarks after each session, there is concern that once again we may spend another two years in trip after trip, meeting after meeting, turning this chess game into a fruitless exercise and a mental preoccupation for nations both in the region and in Iran.

The Revolutionary Guard’s military maneuvers during the negotiations were a reciprocal response to America’s show of force. Indeed, it was a proper action, and certainly one of the IRGC or Army generals should have been present in the negotiating team so that diplomacy and the battlefield could be presented in a comprehensible balance. This did not happen—perhaps it will in later stages.

Based on past experience, including the JCPOA and these recent sessions, one might conclude that we approach negotiations with optimism, while the enemy pursues them with deceptive intent—using negotiations for the sake of negotiations and to shape the media environment in the domain of soft warfare. Ultimately, if an agreed-upon text is not published, this process could turn into a prolonged chess game marked by media checkmates and public negligence.

An example of such negligence was the revelation of Wendy Sherman’s Jewish identity and Abbas Araghchi’s inattention during the JCPOA negotiations, which portrayed our team as passive.

Sherman, in her book, refers to a sensitive moment during the final days of the Vienna negotiations. According to her account, after hours of exhausting talks and sleeplessness, just when an agreement seemed near, Araghchi once again raised an issue that had previously been settled. Sherman, extremely tired and angry, began shouting at Araghchi. She writes that her anger uncontrollably turned into tears. Sherman was shocked that she had cried in front of the Iranian team, but she believes that this display of sincerity and frustration led Araghchi and his team to retreat from their position.

Psychological operations have been, are, and will remain one of the enemy’s tactics. In conclusion, if I were the one conducting these negotiations, I would most certainly propose—and firmly insist—that the talks remain indirect but be conducted in front of the cameras of one hundred selected journalists from Iran, America, and the region, so that the unforgivable secrecy of the past would not be repeated.

The post Negotiating for the Sake of Negotiation appeared first on Iran News Daily.

TEHRAN (Iran News) The unstable and demagogic president of the United States has recently, in several public statements, warned Iran that a “large fleet” is moving toward the region. He has called for Iran’s immediate return to the negotiating table to reach an agreement on “not having nuclear weapons,” and otherwise has promised more severe consequences. These warnings are issued in the context of previous military operations (such as the operation known as “Midnight Hammer” in June 2025 against Iran’s nuclear facilities).

Despite this highly tense atmosphere, indirect negotiations between the United States and Iran, mediated by Oman, were recently resumed in Oman (February 6, 2026).

Both sides described this round of talks as a “good start” and agreed to hold further discussions in the future.

Key U.S. demands and Iran’s positions

Based on limited news and various reports, U.S. demands and Iran’s responses are outlined as follows:

Complete abandonment of the nuclear weapons program, which appears to be Trump’s main and repeatedly stated red line.

Restrictions on the missile program by limiting the range of Iran’s ballistic missiles.

Cessation of support for so-called proxy groups in the region, including cutting financial and military support to Iran’s Shiite regional allies.

Improvement of the human rights situation and an end to the suppression of domestic protesters.

Iran’s positions and responses:

Limiting the scope of negotiations: Iran has repeatedly stated that it is only willing to negotiate over the nuclear issue for the purpose of lifting sanctions, and considers issues such as the missile program or regional influence to be its own “red lines” and non-negotiable.

Emphasis on the right to peaceful nuclear energy: Iran has always stressed that its nuclear program has been exclusively for peaceful purposes and that it has never sought to build nuclear weapons.

Now, in order to understand these statements, attention should be paid to several important historical turning points:

In 2018, the previous U.S. administration unilaterally withdrew from the Comprehensive Joint Plan of Action (JCPOA) and reinstated severe sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In June 2025, the United States announced that it had attacked three key Iranian nuclear facilities (Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan) and claimed that this operation had severely weakened Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

The United States, the United Kingdom, and the Zionist regime, by hiring mercenaries from the MEK (Monafeqin), Komala, and PJAK, laid the groundwork for riots aimed at overthrowing the system in Iran on (18 and 19 Dey 1404), resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 people and the destruction of 350 mosques, libraries, cultural and religious centers, and banks.

At present, the negotiations in Oman are progressing in a favorable manner, and there is hope that they will continue and lead to fruitful results.

Trump needed these negotiations in order to escape the deadlock of laying the groundwork for war—at least in the media space—and the pressure of the opposing party in the United States.

Iran also viewed these negotiations as paving the way for changing the domestic paradigm of fear of war and altering the atmosphere.

Now, with these expectations from both sides, the Muscat meeting can be evaluated as a step toward changing the psychological and emotional conditions of the entire region. And, of course, it remains to be seen what axes the process will construct next week for the white and black houses of this chessboard.

The post Military Pressure in Negotiation appeared first on Iran News Daily.

TEHRAN (Iran News) The rotten and diseased minds of the Westernized deities residing in this land, under any pretext, have been pushing for negotiations with the U.S. in this period following the twelve-day war. For 47 years, our revolution has been plagued by a challenge that has caused all the miseries of our ailing economy. These people consider the “village head” (the U.S.) as God, hiding their true intentions behind the term “village head.”

From them, nothing has been seen but the accumulation of wealth and bowing to the zeros of their ill-gotten fortunes, perceived through the lens of Western groveling. They are the ones who have created the class divide among the people of Iran today.

If only it were possible to measure the bowl of zeal, it would become clear that honor and dignity have no meaning in their bowl.

In reality, one must ask: How can you sit at the same table, or even indirectly engage in dialogue and exchange views, with the devilish germs who have shed the blood of our dearest scientists and commanders? Either you do not understand the meaning of dignity, or you pretend ignorance, and under the guise of diplomatic excuses, you fail to see the enemy’s goals. Did you not realize that the enemy intended to destroy you?

Is it not true that the enemy openly planned to turn you into another Libya and rehearsed dismantling your 47-year-old authority? Did they not deceive the entire West to ensure no Iranian monogamous Iranian remains within a 24-hour period? Yet you still think of sitting face-to-face with them. How foolish to believe the war is over and that peace can now be considered?

Woe to you who did not see the hand of God and the Awaited Savior (Imam Mahdi, may his return be hastened) emerging from the sleeve of our supreme and unparalleled Leader?

Oh God, when will these germs of humiliation and wretchedness pack their bags and leave this land for their beloved “civilized” West? Their impure and irredeemable minds have left no room for understanding today’s civilizational war between us and the West. Perhaps as long as they remain, the ground for the Savior’s appearance will continue to be delayed. These parties, which lack followers and are mostly paper entities, have amassed wealth and use it to make grand claims.

Islamic Iran today, with its unparalleled unity around the ethos of resistance and defense, will one day sift these people through its sieve and confiscate their ill-gotten wealth for the benefit of the nation. The Iranian nation, awakened after the war, has no doubt that many of these individuals drink from the West’s fountain and have no sense of homeland. As the late Imam Khomeini (may God’s mercy be upon him) said, their numbers are few, but their claims are vast.

The German Chancellor spoke the truth when she said the Zionist regime carries out the dirty deeds desired by the West. And indeed, these people whitewash those same dirty deeds of the West within our borders, justifying them with diplomacy. Their fear that the national unity and cohesion forged under the imposed twelve-day war may no longer allow the West to set foot in Iran has left them trembling.

Can the Iranian nation, with its exemplary strength and resilience, remain indifferent to Trump’s rhetoric of “death to Iran again” so that you may fulfill your desires?

The West waged a war against us that further exposed its true nature. This nation is moving forward to pave its path of independence without the West, relying solely on God, and to make its civilizational tree stronger than ever, visible to the world.

We will build Iran with valor and without begging from the West, and for this building, we will not think of negotiations.

2.5s

The post Who Benefits Seeking Negotiation? appeared first on Iran News Daily.

Ali Baqeri-Kani, the Iranian deputy foreign minister for political affairs, made the remarks during an interview with Press TV and before departing for Moscow, reacting to mounting pressure on Tehran to return to talks in Austria’s capital, Vienna, aimed at reviving the nuclear deal, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The talks, which were paused in June after Iran’s presidential election, are expected to resume before the end of November, Baqeri-Kani announced via a tweet on Wednesday, following talks with Enrique Mora, the European Union’s deputy foreign policy chief, in Brussels.

“During today’s meeting, I stressed that we, who fully honored the [nuclear] agreement and we still do, are in fact near the negotiating table,” he told Press TV after the Wednesday meeting.

“Those who are far from the negotiating table are the ones that have either failed to uphold their commitments or indeed violated the previous commitments,” he said. “They are very far from the negotiating table.”

The senior Iranian diplomat explained that his meeting with Mora lasted several hours, during which they discussed the backgrounds, requirements, and conditions that are needed for result-oriented negotiations to be established between Iran and P4+1.

He said it was decided during the meeting that Iran and P4+1 will resume negotiations “within the next month” based on those frameworks.

Iran’s envoy to talks aimed at potential removal of U.S. sanctions says the Islamic Republic is to rejoin the negotiations before November’s end.

He also repeatedly underlined Iran’s firm stance on the primacy of establishing “result-oriented” negotiations via the Vienna format.

“Result-oriented talks are acceptable for us; talks that will have practical outcomes; talks that will lead to the removal of cruel and illegal sanctions. But we do not accept talks for the sake of talks and reject them,” he said.

“A very important point that was underscored during today’s meeting and also during the meeting in Tehran is that the Islamic Republic of Iran only pursues talks that require practical achievements and outcomes, and that the Islamic Republic of Iran does not pursue talks for reaching a mere agreement written on a piece of paper,” Baqeri-Kani, who replaced Abbas Araqchi as Iran’s lead negotiator, stated.

“The main subject in these talks is the removal of cruel and illegal sanctions that were imposed against the Islamic Republic of Iran in the course of the last few years, especially the sanctions that were imposed by [former U.S. President Donald] Trump under the so-called maximum pressure policy against our people as a result of the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA,” he added, using the official acronym of the landmark agreement.

He arrived in Moscow Thursday night to hold talks with his Russian counterpart Sergei Ryabkov, on new round of talks in Vienna, Austria, to pave the way for lifting cruel sanctions imposed by the United States on Iran.

Upon his arrival, the Iranian diplomat said that in accordance with a recent agreement between Iran and the P4+1 group of countries (Britain, France, Russia, China plus Germany), Iranian representatives are scheduled to hold joint meetings with each of the four states; so, the first joint session will be held between Russia and Iran.

He stipulated that the new round of talks will be held merely with the aim of lifting illegal and cruel U.S. sanctions.

The Iranian official in his first trip as deputy FM to Moscow said that he would discuss other issues of mutual interests.

The post JCPOA Violators Far From Meaningful Negotiating Table appeared first on Iran News Daily.

TEHRAN (Iran News) – Iran is ready to return to the negotiations if the United States first drops sanctions, President Hassan Rouhani said Wednesday.

The post Ready for negotiations if US lifts sanctions; Rouhani says appeared first on Iran News Daily.

Es’hagh Jahangiri, Iranian First Vice-President said on Wednesday that US is after forcing Iran to surrender under pressures which makes negotiating with US unacceptable for Iran.

The post Negotiation with US unacceptable: Veep appeared first on Iran News Daily.

The post Iranian official dismisses claims of negotiation over missile program appeared first on Iran News Daily.

The post No chance for negotiations on Iran’s missiles appeared first on Iran News Daily.