Iran has ruled out direct talks with the United States over its controversial nuclear program for the time being. According to Iranian Prime Minister Massud Peseschkian, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei informed U.S. President Donald Trump in an official letter that Tehran is currently unwilling to engage in direct negotiations. However, Khamenei emphasized that Iran remains open to diplomatic exchanges through unofficial or indirect channels.
The letter was a response to a message from Trump that arrived in Tehran in early March, in which the U.S. president urged Iran to quickly enter negotiations over its nuclear program—a key point of contention that has strained relations between the two countries for years. Trump reportedly gave Tehran a two-month deadline to reach an agreement.
Immediately after Tehran’s refusal, Trump escalated his rhetoric. In a televised interview, he issued a blunt threat: “If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombings.” He also reiterated the possibility of economic sanctions, particularly so-called secondary sanctions—measures aimed at foreign companies doing business with Iran, such as those involved in the purchase of Iranian oil.
Later, speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump stated, “We will probably wait a few weeks and see if there is any progress. If not, we’ll implement the sanctions.” His comments are consistent with media reports suggesting that Trump gave Iran a two-month window in his letter to find a diplomatic solution.
Iran’s rejection of direct talks signals that trust in the Trump administration remains deeply shaken—especially in light of the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear agreement (JCPOA) and the subsequent reimposition of harsh sanctions.
Khamenei, anticipating the possibility of an attack, warned of a “decisive counterstrike,” though he said he did not consider a U.S. military intervention “very likely.” The state-run Tehran Times reported that “Iranian missiles are loaded and ready for launch at all underground missile facilities.” Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Mohammad Bagheri, was filmed inspecting missile silos in tunnels. Iran is capable of targeting U.S. bases in the Middle East and has also threatened to destroy regional energy infrastructure and disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, potentially driving up global oil prices. After choosing not to retaliate against a recent Israeli strike in October 2024, Iran now appears intent on dispelling any doubts about its resolve.
This raises the risk that both countries could enter a cycle of escalation—despite neither appearing to have an interest in open conflict. After Trump took office, Iran initially signaled willingness to negotiate, apparently entertaining the idea that the president might accept a deal palatable to Tehran to bolster his image as a “deal-maker.” However, Tehran changed course following a memorandum issued by Trump in February, announcing a return to his “maximum pressure” policy. The document stated that pressure would not be limited to the nuclear issue but would also target Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support for regional militias—both core pillars of Iran’s national security doctrine, the abandonment of which would amount to capitulation.
Adding to Tehran’s skepticism are conflicting signals from Washington. While U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff said that Trump seeks a “verification program,” National Security Advisor Mike Waltz spoke of a “complete dismantling” of Iran’s nuclear facilities. This discordant messaging has likely deepened Tehran’s doubts about the reliability of any agreement with Washington.
In Tehran, voices warning against direct negotiations with U.S. President Donald Trump have recently grown louder. From the perspective of influential factions within the regime, the risk of a military strike by the United States and Israel is considered lower than the political fallout of a potential agreement. A deal reached under pressure could be interpreted by hardliners as an act of capitulation—with potentially devastating consequences for the ideological stability of the Islamic Republic. The regime’s very foundation, ideologically rooted in independence and resistance against the West, could be severely undermined by any concessions.
Observers therefore suspect that Tehran is deliberately playing for time—hoping that Trump, in the end, will shy away from full-scale war. Despite his aggressive rhetoric, Washington has so far shown no clear strategic interest in a major military confrontation. A limited show of force—such as targeted airstrikes—might serve a domestic political purpose but carries unpredictable risks, particularly in the already volatile Middle East.
At the same time, pressure is mounting from another side: The Israeli government is lobbying Washington intensively for a military solution. In its view, Iran’s current political and economic vulnerability presents an opportunity to decisively set back the country’s nuclear program through a preemptive strike. Yet such considerations are not without risk: A direct attack could be seen in Tehran as the final red line—potentially prompting the regime to commit fully to developing a nuclear weapon.
So far, however, U.S. intelligence agencies believe that no such decision has been made. Experts warn, though, that if Tehran were to change course, it could act quickly: The production of weapons-grade fissile material could be achieved within days. However, building a so-called “dirty bomb”—for example, for a test—would take several months, according to specialists.
It remains unclear how the U.S. government will respond to Iran’s offer to continue indirect talks. While Trump’s administration has so far favored maximum escalation, his predecessor Joe Biden attempted in 2021 to revive the 2015 nuclear agreement (JCPOA), which Trump had unilaterally abandoned in 2018. Biden sought to do so through unofficial channels in Vienna, but his efforts ultimately failed.
Tehran’s offer of indirect negotiations appears to be a calculated compromise: On the one hand, it signals a willingness to engage and aims to demonstrate openness to the war-weary Iranian public. On the other, it avoids direct confrontation with hardliners, who reject what they see as a “dictated peace.” At the same time, there is growing public pressure inside Iran for economic relief—the sanctions have left deep scars.
But even this tactical maneuvering has a deadline: The remaining framework of the nuclear agreement is set to expire in October. The European signatories—Germany, France, and the United Kingdom—have announced their intention to decide by then whether to reinstate suspended UN sanctions if Iran does not make significant progress by summer. Such a development could trigger a new spiral of escalation: Tehran has openly threatened to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in response—a move that would have far-reaching consequences for both regional and global security.
