Tehran hardens line on US settlement

Tehran has warned it will reject any settlement with Washington unless the agreement delivers verifiable protection for the rights and interests of its people, sharpening the terms around negotiations aimed at ending the conflict with the United States.

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s Parliament speaker and a central figure in talks with Washington, said no agreement would be approved without certainty that Iran had secured tangible gains. His remarks, broadcast through state media on Sunday, signalled that Tehran is seeking enforceable commitments rather than broad political assurances as diplomacy continues under pressure from military escalation, sanctions and deep mistrust.

Ghalibaf’s comments came as the conflict entered a decisive phase, with diplomatic channels remaining active despite strikes, threats of retaliation and sharp disagreements over nuclear guarantees, sanctions relief, frozen assets and security arrangements in the Strait of Hormuz. Washington has maintained that any deal must ensure Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons, while Tehran has insisted that its sovereign rights, economic access and national security cannot be traded for temporary pauses in hostilities.

The statement also underlined the domestic constraints facing negotiators in Tehran. Ghalibaf, re-elected as Parliament speaker on May 25, has had to balance pressure from hardline factions wary of concessions with the practical need to secure economic relief. His position gives Parliament a direct role in shaping the political legitimacy of any settlement, particularly if the terms require legislative approval or public defence before a sceptical power structure.

Iran’s negotiating posture has hardened around the phrase “tangible results”, reflecting its demand that commitments by Washington be implemented before Tehran fulfils reciprocal obligations. That sequencing has become a central dispute. Tehran fears that a deal built on promises could unravel under domestic US political pressure or enforcement disputes, while Washington wants early Iranian commitments on military and nuclear restrictions before easing financial pressure.

The talks have been shaped by the conflict that erupted after US and allied military action against Iranian targets earlier this year, followed by attempts to establish a ceasefire framework. Strikes around southern Iran and the Gulf have kept tensions high, with the Strait of Hormuz remaining a key strategic concern because of its role in global energy shipments. Any prolonged disruption there would place renewed pressure on oil markets, shipping costs and regional security planning.

Ghalibaf accused the United States of using economic pressure and media operations to divide Iran, language aimed as much at domestic audiences as foreign negotiators. Tehran has framed the talks as a test of whether Washington is prepared to recognise Iran’s rights rather than impose surrender terms. That messaging helps the leadership defend engagement with the US without appearing to retreat under pressure.

Washington’s position remains centred on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons and limiting the regional military risks tied to missiles, militias and maritime threats. President Donald Trump has said he wants a favourable deal but has also left open the possibility of further military action if diplomacy fails. That dual-track approach has reinforced Iranian doubts about US intentions while giving Washington leverage in negotiations.

Mediators in Qatar and Pakistan have sought to keep the process from collapsing. Doha remains important because of its role in financial arrangements and back-channel diplomacy, while Islamabad has offered political space for communication between the two sides. Discussions have touched on frozen assets, sanctions relief, oil access, ceasefire enforcement and maritime security, though the most contentious nuclear and military guarantees remain unresolved.

Iran’s economy has endured years of sanctions, currency pressure and restricted access to global financial channels. A settlement could ease some of those strains if it unlocks assets and restores parts of its oil trade. Yet any deal perceived as weak could trigger backlash from powerful factions that view negotiations with Washington as a strategic risk.