The holding of this new round of nuclear negotiations in Geneva has received wide coverage in international media and is being followed as one of the world’s most significant diplomatic developments of the day. The talks are commencing under conditions in which expectations, sensitivities, and mutual distrust run considerably higher than in previous rounds. Every political signal—before and after the start of negotiations—is being carefully monitored and interpreted.
From Tehran’s perspective, this round of discussions with the United States is not a new starting point, but rather a continuation of a path that has been tested repeatedly and has now reached what it views as the stage of “final clarification.” Taking prior experiences into account—particularly periods when the diplomatic process coincided with escalatory actions and what Tehran describes as Washington’s green light to aggressive behavior by the Israeli regime—Iran has entered this phase with caution and calculation. That historical backdrop has shifted Iran’s approach from simple optimism to cautious realism.
Despite this record, Iran has not closed off the path of diplomacy, citing the insistence and concerns of regional countries about preserving peace and stability. The selection of Oman as a mediator can be understood within this framework; a choice that reflects Tehran’s effort to maintain its sense of regional responsibility while keeping dialogue on the table as a rational option, even amid serious doubts about the intentions and resolve of the other side.
On the eve of the arrival of the US negotiating delegation in Geneva, remarks made last night by J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio were widely interpreted as a kind of “political preparatory fire.” Their emphasis on raising the level of demands, tightening the framework of any agreement, and extending negotiations to non-nuclear issues—including Iran’s missile program—sent a clear message: Washington is entering the talks with an agenda that goes beyond the nuclear file. By outlining these positions before the formal start of negotiations, the United States effectively shifted expectations and signaled its intention to use the negotiating table to redefine the scope of its demands.
In this context, a tweet by Ali Shamkhani was published, a statement that can be assessed as part of Iran’s logic of “diplomatic final notice.” Shamkhani stated that if the core issue of the negotiations is ensuring that Iran does not build a nuclear weapon, that matter has already been settled in the Supreme Leader’s fatwa and in the defense doctrine of the Islamic Republic of Iran; within that framework, an understanding is achievable. This was not a new concession, but rather a reminder of a position that Iran maintains has long been reflected in its practical conduct.
The significance of this position becomes more pronounced when viewed against repeated US claims about Iran’s alleged intention to build a nuclear bomb. According to Tehran, these claims continue to lack documented legal and technical backing and function primarily as instruments of political pressure. The main objective of amplifying this narrative, in Iran’s view, is to restrict its legal right to uranium enrichment and the peaceful use of nuclear technology—a right recognized within international rules and one that cannot be undermined by unproven allegations.
Alongside this issue, the United States has raised claims regarding the development of Iran’s missile program, asserting that it is aimed at producing intercontinental missiles capable of threatening US territory, in an effort to broaden the scope of negotiations. As with the nuclear bomb file, Tehran argues that this narrative is based less on concrete evidence and more on an attempt to legitimize pressure beyond the nuclear agreement framework. Iran’s missile program, it maintains, has a defensive and deterrent nature and is directly tied to the country’s territorial security needs and historical experiences in confronting external threats.
The reality, from Tehran’s standpoint, is that no country can rely on unfounded claims to deprive another country of its legal rights to benefit from modern technologies and to strengthen its defensive capabilities. From this perspective, the Geneva negotiations are, above all, a stage for clarifying intentions and priorities. If the focus remains on the nuclear issue and within accepted frameworks, the path of dialogue is clear and an agreement is within reach. However, any attempt to expand the agenda into non-nuclear domains will only widen the gap between the parties’ positions.
With this approach, Iran has clearly articulated its positions and initiatives and has demonstrated that it accepts dialogue—but not at the cost of disregarding its legal rights and the fundamental requirements of its national security.