Iran International
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei rejected US President Donald Trump’s overture for a deal with Tehran even before opening Trump’s letter. Still, like commentators and diplomats in Iran and abroad, he was likely aware of its contents.
Around the same time Khamenei was speaking in Tehran on March 12, Iranian and Russian sources revealed that Trump’s proposal was not limited to the nuclear issue, as Iran had expected, but also included discussions on Iran’s regional proxy groups.
While Iranians traditionally view negotiations as a lengthy process of bargaining, much like haggling over a carpet in the bazaar, Trump’s approach appears more like a spring storm—starting with thunder and lightning, followed by a brief but intense downpour, before quickly subsiding into calm.
Former Iranian diplomat Kourosh Ahmadi, in an article in Shargh newspaper, wrote that Khamenei’s earlier refusal to engage with the United States—widely interpreted as a rejection of negotiations—was not fundamentally different from remarks by Iran’s envoy in New York, Saeed Iravani. Iravani stated that "if negotiations are meant to address concerns about the militarization of Iran’s nuclear program, such talks are possible."
Ahmadi added that Iravani’s remarks show a change and indicate a new development in Iran’s position. This comes while Khamenei had stressed that negotiation over “Iran’s defense capabilities, its international power and the range of its missiles and so on will certainly not be accepted."
Nonetheless, the former diplomat noted that “the nuclear issue is by far Trump’s most important, and possibly his only, priority” when it comes to Iran. Ahmadi argued that the United States recognizes Iran’s regional proxies have been significantly weakened and that restoring their previous strength is no longer feasible. Additionally, he pointed out that both Iran’s neighbors and Washington understand that Iran’s missiles have a limited range and that its regional presence is largely justified by the absence of a conventional air force.
In another development, centrist politician Ezzatollah Yousefian Molla told the conservative Nameh News website that "Trump will gradually retreat from his current positions." He added that Iran has no issue with logical negotiations and realistic demands but emphasized, "If the other side intends to impose its views, that can no longer be called negotiation."
Several other politicians and commentators also stated last week that most of Trump’s threats are mere "bluffs." Yousefian Molla argued that Trump will walk back his more extreme proposals, recognizing that preventing war serves everyone's interests. He also claimed that "Trump understands that engaging in an all-out war is not in the United States’ interest, as Iran would respond forcefully to any military conflict."
However, Iranian academic Kiumars Yazdanpanah warned that "both Iranian and US officials have adopted increasingly confrontational stances, making the possibility of an actual conflict quite real. At this moment, conflict appears to be the most likely outcome."
Yazdanpanah outlined three possible scenarios for the near future. First, he suggested there could be limited military exchanges between Iran and the United States, with one or two swift retaliatory actions. The second scenario, he said, is a temporary state of war, in which the US launches extensive military strikes against Iran while simultaneously working to isolate the country, incite unrest, and exploit geopolitical tensions. The third possibility, according to Yazdanpanah, is that the current standoff—whether through continued escalation or negotiation—leads to a compromise aligned with both sides’ national interests, potentially facilitated by international mediation.
He added that Saudi Arabia is best positioned to act as a mediator and help prevent a war between Iran and the United States. However, he emphasized that regardless of whether a conflict occurs, Iran must rethink its current regional strategy.
