When Donald Trump said this week that the US and Iran had held “very good and productive conversations” about ending war, Iran’s response was quick and blunt.
Iranian officials denied any talks had taken place. One military spokesperson even mocked the claim, saying Americans had been “negotiating with themselves”.
The gap is clear. Washington talks about progress; Tehran rejects it outright. But this is not just a disagreement; it reflects deep mistrust.
That mistrust comes from recent events.
Over the past year, talks between the two sides have twice raised hopes of easing tensions, with the last round said by their Omani host to have addressed key US concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme.
Both times, they were followed by Israeli and US military strikes on Iran.
From Iran’s point of view, talks have not reduced the possibility of war; they have come just before it. That is why Trump’s claims are being treated with suspicion.
But Iran’s denial does not necessarily mean it is against talks. There is more going on.
Even officials who support diplomacy are under pressure. Trying negotiations again, would be risky. There is no clear sign that this time would be different.
This helps explain the tough tone from Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and other officials.
Even before Trump’s post on Truth Social on Monday, Araghchi had said Iran was not seeking talks or a ceasefire and was ready to continue the fight.
The head of Iran’s Government Information Council dismissed the 15-point proposal, saying: “Trump’s words are lies and should not be paid attention to.”
But this does not mean the door is fully closed.
Later on Wednesday, Araghchi neither confirmed or rejected the proposal outright.
He told state TV that “different ideas” had been passed on to the country’s senior leaders – and “if a position needs to be taken, it will certainly be determined”.
He also said Iran’s policy for now was to continue “defending”, and that Tehran “no intention of negotiating for now”.
The current situation in Iran, with ongoing strikes and damage to key infrastructure, is not sustainable. The strong language may be more about setting conditions than rejecting diplomacy altogether.
Iran’s internal politics make things more complicated.
President Masoud Pezeshkian, backed by more moderate groups, has taken a careful approach. Hardliners are far more opposed to talks.
At the same time, even moderate voices are finding it hard to argue for negotiations in the current situation.
There is also pressure from outside the government.
Some opposition groups reject any deal with the Islamic Republic, and have supported strikes in the hope that the war would lead to its collapse and regime change.
Meanwhile, civil society and human rights activists worry that an agreement could give the authorities more space to crack down at home, especially as restrictions have already tightened during the war.
Iran’s position is not just about ideology; it is also about strategy.
Since the conflict escalated, Tehran has shown it can disrupt global energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz. Closing or limiting this route has affected not just oil and gas markets but wider supply chains, too.
This gives Iran leverage. A tough public stance helps keep that pressure in place.