Questioning U.S. Sincerity: Iran Refuses Negotiations, Saying There Are Other Considerations Behind the Statement

Jin10 Data, April 21 — Early in the early hours of April 21 local time, Mohammad Bagher Kalibaf, Speaker of the Iranian Islamic Consultative Assembly, released a message stating that U.S. President Trump, through implementing blockades and violating the ceasefire agreement, is trying to turn the negotiating table into Iran’s surrender table, or to look for an excuse to provoke war again. Currently, the U.S. side has been frequently releasing messages about dispatching delegations to participate in negotiations, but Iran has said it refuses to negotiate. Analyses point out that behind the relevant statements made by Iran, there are multiple considerations and concerns:
First, Iran doubts that the United States lacks sincerity in negotiations. Iran once announced that it would temporarily open the Strait of Hormuz under certain conditions, but this did not result in the United States lifting the blockade against Iranian ports.
Second, negotiation game tactics. “Refusing to negotiate” itself is often an important bargaining chip outside the negotiation table. If Iran shows an “eager to negotiate” posture, the U.S. is very likely to exert further pressure. With both sides lacking basic trust, they will engage in a series of back-and-forth moves before negotiations, probing each other’s bottom lines.
Third, within Iran there are hardline voices and anti-American public sentiment. Hardliners believe that under the U.S. side’s continued pressure, Iran’s making statements to return to the negotiation table too early is a sign of compromise and retreat.
At present, the U.S. and Iran still have differences on multiple issues, including nuclear matters, the issue of passage through the Strait of Hormuz, and sanctions against Iran, among others. Both sides seriously lack mutual trust, and the goals they hope to achieve through negotiations also differ greatly. Analyses indicate that the current situation may have the following possible directions:
First, both sides return to the negotiation table within the ceasefire period, or reach a consensus to extend the ceasefire and continue negotiations. However, the likelihood of both sides reaching a comprehensive, long-term agreement in the short term is low, and negotiations could break down again at any time due to a hardline statement or actions by one side.
Second, both sides fall into a “limited-scale conflict.” After the ceasefire expires, the military standoff and harassment between the U.S. and Iran around the Strait of Hormuz will continue, and fighting may flare up again.
Third, large-scale escalation of the conflict, with the situation getting out of control. The U.S. has recently continued to issue threats of military force against Iran, but analysts in the U.S. believe that, constrained by factors such as rising war costs and increasing political pressure from elections, the Trump administration’s decision-making space for large-scale escalation of the war is relatively limited. (CCTV)