In an interview, Gharibabadi said Iran has never opposed dialogue in principle, but “not at any price.” He noted that if talks were merely for the sake of talking, negotiations could begin immediately, but result-oriented dialogue requires proper conditions.
According to him, the final decision on negotiations is made at the level of the Iranian system as a whole, not by a single institution.
Gharibabadi noted that during five rounds of indirect talks, Washington’s formal demand was “zero enrichment,” a position Iran has consistently rejected. He added that the US side failed to present a clear or coherent proposal, reflecting a lack of internal consensus.
He also referred to a letter sent by US President Donald Trump, describing it as containing both an expression of readiness for negotiations and an explicit threat of military action if talks failed. Iran, he said, responded firmly, rejecting threats while agreeing only to indirect negotiations.
Gharibabadi emphasized that diplomacy has not reached a dead end, but warned that negotiations under the shadow of military threats amount to coercion rather than genuine dialogue.
