Professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran describes the recent talks in Pakistan from the Iranian perspective:
Marandi correctly portrayed the negotiations as a US concession forced by Iran’s battlefield successes during the recent conflict (including missile, drone, and defensive capabilities demonstrated over roughly 40 days of war against the “Trump-Netanyahu regimes”). He argued that Iran entered the talks from a position of strength—not weakness or desperation—and used “armed diplomacy” to document positions rather than out of trust in American promises.
He emphasized that Iran did not waiver from its key preconditions for the talks, which included:
- A comprehensive ceasefire (particularly involving Lebanon and Gaza).
- US fulfillment of prior commitments and respect for Iranian security/assets.
- No negotiations under pressure or sanctions.
Marandi repeatedly stressed that progress depends entirely on the US abiding by its obligations. Without concrete action, “there is no reason for us to continue negotiating.” He expressed no fear of returning to war, stating Iran is fully prepared for any scenario, including escalation, and has no illusions about the hostile nature of the Trump administration.
The most surprising revelation from Professor Marandi was that Iran was prepared for a second day of negotiations but learned belatedly that the US decided, without informing the Iranian delegation, to end the talks and leave. Who does such a thing? It suggests to me that JD Vance was nothing more than an errand boy and that he was ordered by Susie Wiles to stop talking to Iran and leave, using so-called intransigence of Iran over the nuclear issue as an excuse.
I think this is much closer to the truth than what we’ve been told in the Western media, which doesn’t even make sense. And using talks to buy time when they’re being beaten is standard Clown World procedure, to the point that I have absolutely no idea why countries like Iran or Russia ever accept the invitations to negotiation.
China appears to understand the situation rather better, as it simply ignores US and EU diplomacy; not even bothering to have high-level officials greet or meet with the head of the EU when she showed up in Beijing.
It makes no sense to reach agreements with the agreement-incapable. Doing so just to impress the spectators by being able to point out, again, that water is still wet is both performative and pointless.