An Iranian official has told CNN that Tehran holds no objection to engaging in talks with the United States, while simultaneously demanding a change in American behaviour. The statement represents a notable diplomatic signal from the Iranian side, outlining the conditions under which such engagement could take place.

Iran's Position on US Dialogue

According to the Iranian official's remarks to CNN, Tehran's stance combines a degree of openness to communication with a firm set of expectations directed at Washington. The official did not indicate outright rejection of talks but framed any potential dialogue within the context of a required shift in conduct from the American side.

Conditions Outlined by Tehran

The Iranian official's remarks underscore that while Tehran is not opposed to dialogue, the precondition of a behavioural change from the United States remains central to Iran's position. No further specifics regarding the nature of the demanded behavioural change were detailed in the available source information.

Iran's top negotiator Qalibaf has publicly stated that the overarching goal of the ongoing negotiations is to end the war and achieve stable security. Despite articulating this objective, Qalibaf emphasized that Iran holds no trust in the other side, underscoring the deep-seated tensions that continue to define the negotiation landscape. In his latest remarks, Qalibaf expanded on Iran's strategic doctrine, arguing that diplomacy and military action are not mutually exclusive and must be deployed in tandem to defeat the enemy.

Lebanon as a Strategic Reference Point

Qalibaf cited Lebanon as proof that combining diplomacy with military action can defeat enemies. He noted that Beirut was protected at times through retaliation threats and suspended talks, and at other times through direct military action. This framing positions Lebanon as a model for Iran's broader strategic approach, where the choice between diplomatic and military tools is dictated by circumstance rather than ideology.

Interconnected Arenas of Conflict

Qalibaf blamed ceasefire violations and a naval blockade for recent tensions, arguing that military, diplomatic, public, and service arenas are all interconnected. According to Qalibaf, neither diplomacy nor military action impedes the other — rather, they function as complementary instruments within a unified struggle. This perspective reflects Iran's official stance that negotiations should be treated as an extension of the broader conflict, not a departure from it.

Negotiations as an Extension of Struggle

Qalibaf asserted that fighting and negotiating are not mutually exclusive, stating that Iran must do each when the time is right to defeat the enemy. His remarks reinforce the position that Iran views the negotiating table not as a path to compromise, but as one front among several in an ongoing confrontation. The dual emphasis on security goals and the declared absence of trust in the counterpart reflects the complexity of the current diplomatic environment, where any progress toward resolution faces considerable structural obstacles.