An international affairs expert, referring to Araghchi’s recent remarks, says the latest military strike “directly targeted the negotiating table,” and that Iran will return to the path of dialogue only if the United States clearly states its position on Iran’s right to enrichment — an issue still absent from Washington’s messages and the key factor keeping the talks deadlocked.
Zahra Torabi – IranView24
In an interview with Iran View 24, Abdolreza Faraji Rad, professor of geopolitics, commented on the foreign minister’s statement that “the first missile hit the negotiating table,” saying: “After the U.S. strikes carried out following the fifth round of talks — strikes which Mr. Trump has claimed he oversaw in coordination with the Israelis — it was natural for the limited trust that had begun to form in the negotiations to collapse. The minimal confidence that the issues, especially the nuclear file, might be resolved through diplomacy was completely eroded.”
He continued: “For this reason, the Iranian side currently shows little interest in responding to U.S. requests conveyed through intermediaries or to Washington’s apparent willingness to negotiate. The reason is clear: the Americans are putting forward no new plan or reliable proposal for moving the negotiations forward. The messages reaching Iran contain no innovation whatsoever.”
The university professor added: “Iran has stated clearly that if the negotiations are to resume after this violation — what Araghchi described as a ‘missile hitting the negotiating table’ — the U.S. must first clarify whether it accepts Iran’s nuclear program and a level of enrichment that meets the country’s scientific needs. This has not been clarified in any of the indirect messages received from Washington.”
Faraji Rad stated: “For this reason, Iran believes that reentering another round of negotiations with no foreseeable result — and potentially carrying risks and new threats — is not logical.”
He went on: “In recent months, in addition to the nuclear issue, the Americans have sought to bring Iran’s missile program into the negotiations. After Iran’s missile strikes on Israel — carried out in response to Israeli actions — Washington concluded that the range and capability of Iranian missiles pose a serious threat to Israel and even to America’s regional allies. Hence, they are now trying to curtail Iran’s missile range as much as possible.”
The analyst said: “So far, the Americans have shown no indication of flexibility on these two issues, and this has produced a stalemate. Iran is hoping for a shift in Washington’s position. There is a possibility that the U.S. might offer a limited initial ‘green light’ on enrichment to kick-start talks, but nothing is certain yet.”
Referring to Araghchi’s remark that Iran “has never left the negotiating table,” he explained the main barrier preventing the resumption of diplomacy: “Iran is waiting for a clear message from the United States. The country believes it has spent billions of dollars developing nuclear knowledge and capability. Part of the enriched uranium produced is essential for scientific research and domestic needs. But the U.S. insists this uranium should be imported.”
He added: “There is no guarantee that any country — whether Western or Eastern — will not impose restrictions in the future. They might stop providing uranium altogether or halt supplies under Western pressure. Therefore, Iran is waiting for a positive signal recognizing a certain level of enrichment. This message has not yet arrived.”
Addressing the role of intermediary states, he said: “We have several mediators — including Qatar, Oman, Egypt, Switzerland, and occasionally Russia. They transmit messages and maintain diplomatic exchanges. But the messages received so far do not contain what Iran is expecting: no clear sign of approval for any level of enrichment.”
Faraji Rad continued: “Trump occasionally claims he is ready to negotiate or lift sanctions, but he avoids the key point — whether lifting sanctions would be accompanied by accepting Iran’s right to enrichment. This omission is exactly what has pushed the talks into a deadlock.”
Finally, in response to whether direct negotiations could be more effective or whether indirect talks should continue, he said: “According to senior Iranian officials, if any talks take place — and nothing has been formalized yet — they will be indirect. The U.S. and Trump insist on direct negotiations, while Iran currently favors indirect talks. However, this procedural disagreement is not the main issue. The core issue remains enrichment. If the U.S. agrees on that, even indirect messaging would be enough to unlock the negotiations.”
