Iran’s Negotiation Logic — From “Ten Demands” to “Distrust in the United States”

Iran’s negotiation strategy has always revolved around a single main thread: refusing a temporary ceasefire, not trusting the United States’ promises, and refusing to be coerced into negotiations. Behind Trump’s repeated claims that “talks have made progress,” Iran’s true position is far firmer than what the White House describes.

1. Iran’s Core Position: Permanently End the War, Not a Temporary Ceasefire

On April 6, Iran formally responded to the proposal to end the war put forward by the United States to Pakistan. According to disclosures by Iranian media, Iran submitted a total of 10 sections of replies. The core points include: Iran rejects a ceasefire and, instead, must permanently stop the war; ending regional conflicts; drawing up a security and safe passage agreement for the Strait of Hormuz; lifting sanctions and carrying out reconstruction work, etc.

In an interview, Mugaddam, a former senior commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, said Iran initially rejected the 15-point plan proposed by the United States because the plan was based on “a temporary ceasefire in exchange for Iran opening the Strait of Hormuz,” and because the U.S. said Iran needed to accept the relevant conditions and make commitments first, after which the U.S. would take measures such as lifting sanctions.

“Given the U.S.’s lack of trustworthiness and past experience, Iran absolutely cannot accept such a plan.” Mugaddam believes the U.S. is trying to deceive Iran with a ceasefire, so as to re-integrate its forces and launch military action against Iran again, thereby controlling the Strait of Hormuz.

2. “Distrust in the United States”: The Basic Premise of Iran’s Negotiations

On April 1, Iran’s Foreign Minister Araghtzi, in an interview broadcast on Qatar’s Al Jazeera, clearly stated that he had received a message from Trump’s special envoy Wittekov: “but this does not mean that we are negotiating.” He further pointed out that claims that any party of Iran is being negotiated with are not true; “All information is conveyed to or received by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and there is communication between security agencies.”

Araghtzi said bluntly that Iran has never had “a pleasant experience” negotiating with the United States. Iran reached an agreement with the United States years ago (the Iran nuclear deal), but the United States withdrew from it. “We do not believe negotiations with the U.S. will produce any results. Our level of trust is currently zero. We see no sincerity.”

This assessment was corroborated by U.S. intelligence agencies. On April 1, multiple U.S. intelligence agencies assessed that the Iranian government currently has no intention of participating in substantive negotiations aimed at ending the U.S.-Iran war, because Iran believes it is in a favorable position in the war and therefore does not need to accept the diplomatic demands the United States proposes. These agencies also assessed that Iran does not trust the United States and does not believe Trump is serious about the issue of negotiations.

3. Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Rejecting “Coerced Negotiations”

On April 6, Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Bagaei held a press conference in Tehran, giving a tough response to Trump’s “deadline.” He emphasized that issuing such threats in itself constitutes a war crime, and any country that assists in committing such crimes must bear responsibility.

Bagaei pointed out that the United States has carried out military actions against Iran during negotiations on two separate occasions, committing war crimes, which demonstrates the U.S.’s disregard for diplomacy. On the one hand, the United States claims it wants to step up attacks on Iran; on the other hand, it proposes negotiations. Its words and actions are completely inconsistent.

He also clearly stated that Iran does not accept a ceasefire because of past experience: “A ceasefire means a brief respite, allowing the other side to strengthen its forces and then commit more crimes afterward. Any rational person would not do that. Our demand is to end this imposed war and ensure that the cycle of ceasefire and war does not repeat.”

In response to Trump’s “ultimatum,” Bagaei reiterated that negotiations can never be built on threats of “ultimatums, atrocities, or war crimes,” and that the lessons from earlier negotiations between Iran and the United States will not be ignored.

4. Iran’s Military Deterrence: Real Commitment — Operation 4 Continues

While taking a tough stance on the diplomatic front, Iran also shows determination on the military front. On April 7, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps issued a statement warning neighboring countries that “restraint is over,” saying it will strike U.S. and its allies’ infrastructure, and threatening to cut off the United States and its allies’ oil and natural gas supply to the region in the coming years.

According to a military insider, Iran has prepared “surprises” for possible reckless actions by Trump, one of which is to include Saudi Aramco, the Yanbu oil field, and the Fujairah oil pipeline in Iran’s strike targets.

Iranian Parliament Speaker Kalibaf announced on social media that he has joined the “devote yourselves for Iran” campaign, and that more than 14 million Iranians are willing to give their lives for the country. In his comment section, he wrote: “Anyone whose threat or surrender signal is directed toward our country will have his fingers cut off.”

5. The Strait of Hormuz: Iran’s Most Core Negotiation Leverage

For Iran, the Strait of Hormuz is not only a geographic and strategic stronghold, but also its most core negotiation leverage. On the 5th, Iran’s Supreme Leader Mujtaba Khamenei posted on social media, explicitly stating that the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, this strategic lever, “must continue to be used.”

Tabatabai, the deputy director in charge of news and communications at Iran’s presidential office, went one step further by proposing conditions for opening the strait: only after establishing a new legal framework and using past shipping tax revenues to compensate Iran for all losses it suffered in past wars will the Strait of Hormuz be fully reopened.

Bagaei, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, also reiterated that Iran has made it clear it will absolutely not allow enemy vessels to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, Iran has decided to hold talks with Oman in order to reach an agreement regarding a protocol on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

Summary: Iran’s negotiation strategy reflects a clear line of logic: refusing a temporary ceasefire — because the United States is not worth trusting; refusing an ultimatum — because it constitutes a war crime; insisting on a permanent end to the war — because only then can war be prevented from recurring. From the foreign minister’s “trust level is zero,” to intelligence agencies’ assessment that Iran has no intention of participating in substantive negotiations, and then to the Revolutionary Guard Corps’ “restraint is over” — Iran, through both diplomatic language and military actions, is sending the same message to Washington: this is not a negotiation that can be solved with pressure, but a standoff over survival and dignity.
#Gate廣場四月發帖挑戰