Nournews: In the dominant American narrative on negotiations with Iran, one accusation has been repeatedly raised: “Iran is seeking to buy time and drag out the talks.” Over the years, this claim has become a tool for political and media pressure. However, what is now visible in the current negotiation process—especially in the practical conduct of the two sides—seriously calls this narrative into question. If “time” is taken as the main indicator of seriousness, the picture is completely reversed.
Explicit remarks by Ismail Baghaei, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, clarify this reframing. Tehran has stated that it gains nothing from prolonging the negotiations and has entered the process with the aim of reaching a result in the shortest possible time. This stance becomes meaningful when the composition and behavior of the Iranian delegation are considered: a comprehensive team consisting of political, legal, economic, and technical experts tasked with thoroughly examining all aspects of a potential agreement. Moreover, Iran has repeatedly emphasized that it is ready to remain at the negotiation venue for as long as necessary and to continue talks without interruption. This approach is not a sign of stalling, but rather an effort to maximize the use of time.
By contrast, U.S. behavior shows multiple signs of a lack of time-related seriousness. Sending figures such as Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to the talks—without the accompaniment of coherent technical and legal expert teams—reflects Washington’s minimalistic approach to the negotiation process. Negotiating a complex and multi-layered file such as Iran requires continuous expert work, scenario assessments, legal and technical calculations, and sufficient time—elements that are scarcely visible in the composition and scheduling of the U.S. delegation.
This lack of seriousness is further exacerbated by parallel U.S. actions. Instead of focusing on the negotiating table, American officials are continuously giving media interviews, sending contradictory messages, and simultaneously displaying military power in the region. These actions not only fail to advance the talks, but in practice divert time from genuine dialogue toward psychological warfare and political spectacle. Negotiations meant to lead to an agreement move forward in the negotiating room through expert work—not through threats, media narratives, and external pressure.
In this context, the role of Donald Trump as an actor outside the table but present in the psychological environment of the negotiations is noteworthy. By repeatedly emphasizing the “importance of the negotiations” while sending conflicting signals, Trump seeks to disrupt the psychological balance of the talks. Claiming that he is “indirectly present in the negotiations” is less a sign of commitment and more part of the same media game. Iran, however, has deliberately and intelligently stated that such participation is a matter for the American side and that Tehran has no role in it—a stance showing that Iran does not intend to waste negotiation time reacting to personal and media theatrics.
If time is the criterion, Iran—through the presence of a comprehensive expert team, readiness for long-term negotiations, and focus on details—has demonstrated that it seeks a real outcome. In contrast, the United States, with its excessive reliance on media spectacle, deployment of non-specialist representatives, and disregard for the professional requirements of negotiation, is sending a contradictory message. Therefore, the accusation of stalling not only fails to align with on-the-ground realities, but today more than ever reflects back on Washington—where negotiation time has yet to be taken seriously as a strategic asset.
NOURNEWS