A New Configuration of the Negotiating Table: Diplomacy on the Front Line, the Trigger on Standby

While the United States and Europe, through media hype and military threats, are trying to portray Iran as being in need of negotiations, field and political evidence indicate that Tehran, while preserving deterrence, is moving toward shaping a rational framework for talks—one based on realism, mutual respect, recognition of Iran’s legal rights, and avoidance of miscalculation.

Nournews: Contrary to the Western narrative, the Islamic Republic of Iran has not only avoided negotiations, but over the past two decades has consistently been a central and steadfast actor at the negotiating table. What has driven talks into deadlock has not been Tehran’s will, but rather the persistent bad faith of the United States and Europe, violations of formal commitments, and insistence on excessive demands beyond the rules of international law. Drawing on accumulated experience from this process, Iran has rightly learned that negotiation is not necessarily synonymous with trust. Accordingly, Iran is seeking to organize a new negotiating structure in a way that forces the other side to move beyond the illusion of maximum pressure and unrealistic demands and to accept the realities of the balance of power.

Iran as an Independent Decision-Shaping Actor

The growing regional and international diplomatic efforts to mediate between Iran and the United States are themselves the clearest indication of Iran’s real standing. A country that is isolated, weak, or desperate for negotiations does not become the focal point of security and political consultations. The West’s implicit acknowledgment of Iran’s decisive role in regional equations shows that Tehran is not merely a subject of negotiation, but one of the architects of those equations. This reality must be reflected in any negotiating framework; otherwise, the continued illusion of Iran’s isolation will only lead to a repetition of the West’s past failures.

Respect for Facilitators, Not Strategic Retreat

Iran’s acceptance of the role of facilitators—especially neighbors and regional countries—does not signal weakness or fear, but rather reflects Tehran’s convergent and responsible approach to collective security. While respecting the views of its friends and actors genuinely concerned with regional stability, Iran makes its final decisions solely on the basis of national interests, sustainable security, and its non-negotiable rights. From this perspective, the formation of a negotiating framework does not represent a change in Iran’s behavior, but a continuation of its strategic rationality—one that balances active diplomacy with field-based power.

America’s Red Line of Miscalculation

The greatest risk facing the negotiation process is the other side’s misreading of Iran’s approach. Tehran’s emphasis on negotiations should not be mistakenly interpreted as a reduction in its will or capacity to resist. Past experiences, including direct and indirect confrontations, have taught Iran that the United States can resort to aggressive behavior even in the midst of dialogue. For this reason, alongside diplomacy, the hands of Iran’s armed forces remain on the trigger to punish any aggressor. Any miscalculation will bring catastrophic consequences for U.S. interests, bases, and allies—particularly the Zionist regime. A future negotiating framework will remain sustainable only if the West learns from the past and does not fall captive to the illusions of profit-seeking warmongers.