Iran’s decision-making elite are “trapped in slogans they have already committed to” and may struggle to free themselves from positions that stand in the way of a nuclear deal with the United States, a former Iranian diplomat has warned.
Kourosh Ahmadi, who served in Iran’s diplomatic corps, told Euronews Persian both Tehran and Washington face domestic constraints that could prevent an agreement, even as the countries explore renewed negotiations following their 12-day conflict in June 2025.
“Both sides are trapped in slogans they have already committed to,” Ahmadi said. “Whether they can free themselves from this self-made trap is unclear. We will have to wait and see.”
The second round of talks between Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and US Vice President JD Vance, scheduled for mid-week in Islamabad, did not take place.
Iran’s dissatisfaction with the US naval blockade and US President Donald Trump’s threats against Tehran appear to have contributed to the delay, while internal disagreements among Iranian officials also played a role.
Pakistan’s previous deadlines for Tuesday and Wednesday passed without Iran deciding whether to participate, although efforts to reschedule are ongoing.
Ahmadi said Iran should continue negotiations despite the obstacles. “Key longstanding obstacles were removed in the first round,” he said. “Face-to-face talks took place, and the negotiations appeared comprehensive, allowing both sides to raise any issue.”
He warned that a complete withdrawal by Iran would allow the United States to shift blame onto Tehran.
Each side objects to other side’s measures
Both countries have imposed measures that the other objects to. The US maintains a naval blockade of Iranian ports, while Iran has restricted traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, leaving the sides in what Ahmadi described as a “relatively balanced position”.
The Tehran regime’s Supreme National Security Council issued a firm statement saying Iran would not “back down one bit” on the Strait of Hormuz closure.
The statement followed remarks by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who had indicated Iran would reopen the strait within technical limits during the ceasefire.
Ahmadi said the council’s position was not oppositional. “It was in reaction to Trump’s post that the council spoke of keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed,” he said. Trump had said the US would maintain its naval blockade despite any reopening of the strait.
After Araghchi’s comments and Trump’s posts, domestic hardliners accused negotiators including Ghalibaf of making excessive concessions. The council’s statement followed.
“If Trump had not insisted on continuing the naval blockade, the Strait of Hormuz could have remained open,” Ahmadi said.
Hardliners invoke religious narratives
Some hardline figures in Iran argue the Islamic Republic should resist US pressure, invoking religious narratives such as the example of the third Shia Imam, Husayn ibn Ali, who sacrificed his life at the Battle of Karbala to resist tyranny and oppression, according to the dogma.
Vahid Jalili, a senior official at the IRIB state-run broadcaster and the brother of former nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, recently echoed this rhetoric.
Ahmadi said these views reflect a specific faction within the ruling structures.
“They may believe symbols from Islamic history can guide policy today, but in practice, the issue is not about stopping enrichment under pressure,” he said. “If it were addressed through negotiations and legal channels, it might not be a problem.”
However, the language used right now to rally support should not be overinterpreted, according to Ahmadi.
“These are rhetorical statements often used by political leaders to address their audiences,” he said. “Political leaders have multiple audiences and say things to the satisfaction of their social base on which these words cannot be based.”
Some officials, including late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, stressed the need for uranium enrichment for medical and energy purposes. Critics warn that continuing the programme could increase the risk of conflict.
In contrast, some hardline currents have rejected these concerns and called for continued confrontation, including the “elimination of Israel”.
Ahmadi said such slogans are common in wartime. “They should not be taken literally or as a basis for policy,” he said.
“I hope those who use such slogans do not become prisoners of their own rhetoric. First, there must be a viable state called Iran in this difficult region, and only then can it pursue a nuclear industry or any other development to improve people’s lives.”
Enrichment as leverage, not deterrence
On uranium enrichment, Ahmadi said any major decision such as a long-term suspension would require approval by the Supreme National Security Council and new Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei.
“Not everyone will necessarily agree, but the interests of a country of 90 million cannot be determined by a minority whose views could lead to a more destructive military confrontation,” he said.
According to Ahmadi, the enrichment projects were not aiming to produce a bomb, as a fatwa declared such weapons forbidden in Islam. He suggested enrichment at high levels may have had two purposes: to create military deterrence, and to serve as leverage in negotiations to lift sanctions.
“The assumption about military deterrence has proven baseless, especially after recent wars showed enrichment does not prevent conflict,” he said.
“If the objective was to create leverage for sanctions relief, then enrichment should now be used in that same direction and the system should accept this approach.”
He added that enrichment could be suspended in exchange for sanctions relief while Iran retains its rights under international law and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
“The debate is about suspension, not a permanent end,” he said.
From 2003 to 2025, Iran’s leadership had more than two decades to manage the enrichment issue through negotiations and legal channels in a way that could have prevented conflict, Ahmadi said.
“However, because the issue was considered vital, the process did not reach its intended outcome and ultimately contributed to war.”
Who carries political legacy?
When asked whether remnants of Iran’s conservative faction could abandon enrichment and reach an agreement with the US, Ahmadi said this is a decision that must be made through the formal political system.
“The system has a decision-making process,” he said. “If it is followed, a decision will be made, and there will always be those who oppose it. No decision is taken with the agreement of all members; the majority view forms the basis.”
He said that reaching an agreement remains uncertain. “I am not saying they will definitely agree. I hope they do, and I think we are on that path, but we must see whether the United States is willing to act in a reasonable and fair manner.”
Trump faces internal constraints and seeks an outcome different from the Obama-era nuclear deal, Ahmadi said. Meanwhile, Ali Khamenei’s political legacy appears to be one obstacle to agreement between Tehran and Washington.
“Passing through the political legacy of leaders who have ruled for decades is usually not easy,” Ahmadi said.
“But this depends on the decision-making process — whether the Supreme National Security Council makes the decision and the current leader approves it.”
He said a key factor in any transition from this legacy is whether new leadership can end a state of war in order to function openly. “If a lasting ceasefire is established, it would be easier for leadership to appear publicly.”
Ahmadi stressed that war must not resume. “War has never solved any problem,” he said. “Peace is necessary so people know what they can and should do. Contrary to common misconceptions, war disrupts rather than resolves processes.”