After Twelve Days of War, What’s Driving Iran’s Surprising Push for Talks with the U.S.?

Despite a recent U.S. strike that damaged key nuclear facilities, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian declared there was “no problem” with resuming negotiations with Washington — a statement that drew fierce backlash from Iran’s conservative press, which branded the move a “strategic mistake.”

Pezeshkian’s remarks, made in the wake of escalating tensions, have reignited questions about why Tehran appears eager to return to the table, especially after the Iranian parliament voted on June 25, 2025, to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency in response to the attacks.

Iranian Incentives

On July 8, U.S. President Donald Trump claimed that Iran’s leadership was seeking a meeting to “make peace,” insisting he couldn’t imagine delivering another strike against Tehran while it appeared eager for a resolution.

Speaking at a dinner hosted for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump said, “Iran wants to negotiate, and we will do everything we can to keep it free of nuclear weapons.”

Turning to U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump asked when the meeting with the Iranians might take place. 

Witkoff replied that it would happen “very soon — possibly as early as next week.”

On the Iranian side, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote for the Financial Times that Tehran had received messages in recent days suggesting the U.S. may be ready to return to the negotiating table.

“Iran seeks broader economic cooperation with America,” Araghchi noted, adding that the country is “open to mutual engagement aimed at revitalizing the Iranian economy.”

The developments come just two days after Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian appeared in a televised interview with American broadcaster Tucker Carlson, where he asserted that Tehran could resolve its disputes with Washington through dialogue — offering the same economic incentive to the U.S.

“We can easily settle our differences and conflicts with the United States through dialogue and talks,” Pezeshkian said, urging Trump to avoid being drawn into a war with Iran “pushed by Netanyahu.”

“Trump has the ability to lead the region towards peace and a brighter future, putting an end to Israel or falling into an endless pit or quagmire — the choice of path rests with the President of the United States,” Pezeshkian added.

Pezeshkian placed responsibility for the collapse of talks on “Tel Aviv,” accusing it of launching Israeli military strikes against Iran on June 13. 

The attacks triggered a 12-day aerial confrontation that left Iranian military commanders and nuclear scientists dead.

He asked, “How can we be absolutely certain that the Israeli regime will not attack us again during negotiations?” but added that “nothing prevents American investment in Iran.”

On July 1, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told the American network CBC that “the doors of diplomacy will never be completely closed,” setting the condition that “we must first be sure that the United States will not return to targeting us with military strikes while negotiations are ongoing.”

A Strategic Error

Following his remarks, Kayhan, closely aligned with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, launched a scathing attack on Pezeshkian, condemning his interview with the American journalist as contradictory to the principles of the Iranian regime and warning of the dangers of continuing negotiations with Washington.

In an article published on July 8, Kayhan’s editor-in-chief, Hossein Shariatmadari, questioned, “Is it just to sit again, without conditions, at the same table with those who have bombarded diplomacy?”

The piece accused the president of being influenced by “destructive advisers,” calling for their dismissal, and insisted that pursuing negotiations and peace with Trump, while attempting to contain Netanyahu, was a “strategic error.”

Meanwhile, the conservative newspaper Javan condemned Pezeshkian’s remarks as “softer and more conciliatory than necessary,” arguing that “the true meaning of dialogue with an American interviewer only emerges when words express the people’s deep mistrust and anger towards the United States.”

Gholam Reza Sadeghian, the paper’s editor-in-chief and close to the Revolutionary Guards, said, “I see no benefit in such interviews. It would be better to adopt firmer measures to project Iran’s voice to the world.”

He insisted there is “no place for psychological games or soft diplomacy when confronting enemies. Our anger is justified, and hiding it would be a strategic mistake.”

Commenting in a piece for Khorasan newspaper, also close to the Revolutionary Guards, journalist Abu al-Fadl Jamandi described Pezeshkian’s views as “an ineffective strategy based on trying to exploit the rift between Netanyahu and Trump — a notion lacking any concrete foundation.”

“Entering negotiations with the U.S. at this stage means accepting the American narrative on Iran, which could legitimize a potential U.S. strike,” the journalist said.

“Iranian diplomacy must strengthen the country’s sources of power and move beyond classical diplomatic approaches to safeguard the nation’s achievements and leadership during this transitional phase against aggressive wars,” he added.

Meanwhile, the reformist newspaper Ham Mihan described Pezeshkian’s interview as significant, noting the long absence of Iranian officials from the global and American media landscape. 

It attributed this to the hardliners’ poor management, who view the media solely as a propaganda tool, resulting in Iran’s increasing international media isolation.

In a report dated July 8, the paper viewed the dialogue with the well-known broadcaster Tucker Carlson as a positive step, while criticizing the continued restrictions on Iranian experts participating in foreign media as “a misguided policy.”

It concluded that there is an urgent need to strengthen Iran’s media strategy, warning that “otherwise, we will lose the battle,” and highlighted how the political establishment has lost control over the domestic media landscape due to the dire state of national television.

The Only Option

On the reasons behind Iran’s willingness to resume talks, writer and Iran specialist Mostafa al-Nuaimi told Al Estiklal that it is Tehran’s only viable option, as it “offers a vital lifeline for its struggling economy.”

He explained that Iran “is seeking an agreement that could lead to the easing of international sanctions, which have inflicted severe economic damage.”

“Tehran is striving to secure security guarantees to prevent future attacks on its facilities, whether from the U.S. or Israel, and these negotiations may serve as a means to achieve that, in line with Iran’s negotiation doctrine,” Al-Nuaimi added.

Among the reasons cited, Tehran also seeks to reaffirm its right to uranium enrichment despite international pressure, insisting that its nuclear activities are solely for peaceful purposes. Resuming talks, it believes, offers an opportunity to defend this position.

The researcher emphasized that Iran is acutely aware that direct military escalation with the United States or “Israel” could have severe consequences. 

Consequently, it turns to diplomacy as a means to avoid or at least reduce the risk of confrontation, aiming to safeguard what remains of its nuclear program after key sites were targeted and damaged.

He noted that Iran intends to exploit divisions within the international community—particularly between the United States and some of its allies, as well as with Russia and China—to secure more favorable terms in negotiations.

Al-Naimi expressed his belief that uranium enrichment remains the greatest challenge, with the U.S. and “Israel” pushing to reduce levels to near zero, while Iran insists on its right to enrichment for peaceful purposes—a stance widely seen as a cover for advancing its military nuclear ambitions.

Conversely, he argued that the United States is likely to intensify pressure by capitalizing on Iran’s internal divisions—particularly between hardliners and more pragmatic factions advocating for a deal.

According to the Iran expert, the issue of international inspections of nuclear sites will remain a major sticking point, one Washington and its allies are unlikely to overlook—especially after Tehran expelled IAEA inspectors and refused to meet international demands.

In al-Nuaimi’s view, Iran will need to demonstrate a clear commitment to international non-proliferation standards—something that requires full transparency and cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

IAEA chief Rafael Grossi recently revealed that the agency has no knowledge of the whereabouts of more than 400 kilograms of potentially enriched uranium, after Iranian officials claimed it was moved as a precautionary measure ahead of anticipated U.S. strikes on nuclear facilities.

Speaking to Fox News on June 25, Grossi said, “We are not guessing… we have no information about the location of this material,” adding that Iranian officials had informed him they were taking precautionary measures “which may or may not include relocating the enriched uranium.”

“The best way to determine the whereabouts of the uranium is to allow inspection activities to resume as soon as possible — and I believe that would be in everyone’s interest,” The IAEA chief concluded.