TEHRAN – Hopes for a renewed diplomatic breakthrough between Iran and the U.S. have lingered ever since their last round of talks was shattered in June by Israeli and American airstrikes—an unprecedented bombing campaign targeting Iranian nuclear, civilian, and military sites that killed approximately 1,100 people and raised serious questions about Washington’s choice to bomb a country it was negotiating with.

The recent frenzy of reports attributing made-up stories to every diplomatic encounter between Iranian officials and third countries may be a symptom of this global longing. The biggest such story was attached to a letter delivered last month to the Saudi Minister of Hajj by Alireza Bayat, the head of Iran’s Hajj and Pilgrimage Organization. The letter, penned by President Masoud Pezeshkian, thanked Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman for heeding the president’s previous correspondence and for facilitating travel for Iranian pilgrims. Nevertheless, several outlets claimed the letter had actually asked Bin Salman to act as a mediator between Iran and the U.S. during his upcoming visit to Washington, where he was scheduled to meet with President Donald Trump. The story grew so widespread that the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, personally denied it in a televised address to the Iranian nation.

The reports may have also unnerved Oman, the established go-between during the five rounds of U.S.-Iran talks in April and early June. In an interview held last month in Muscat, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi commended Oman for its "professional, honest, and constructive" handling of the indirect negotiations. His remarks also appeared to address a number of other countries, which some sources say are angling to replace Oman in any future talks.

“The door for negotiation and mediation is always open, and this possibility exists at any time,” Araghchi said. “But the first principle of diplomacy is that both parties come to the table with a genuine intention for a fair and equal exchange. If one party’s goal is to impose its demands, such negotiations do not take shape and yield no results.”

How Trump – and the United States – views negotiations

Negotiation is supposed to be a collaborative process of communication between two or more parties that have differing interests and aim to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. It is not about winning or losing, but about finding a solution that all sides can agree to—even if it's not their ideal outcome. When negotiating is successful, each side concedes something and ends up reaping the benefits of a win-win agreement.

When it comes to the U.S. and the Trump administration, however, negotiation appears to hold a different meaning. It becomes about dictating terms and projecting power. Trump treats negotiation as a one-way imposition of demands; the other party must simply comply and become a resentful stakeholder in an agreement it does not want. For Trump, a negotiation requires a clear winner—and that winner must always be him.

In his recent interview, Araghchi argued that the core issue is the United States’ own disbelief in negotiation, which is a stark contradiction to its leaders’ frequent claims that Iran is the side unwilling to pursue diplomacy.

“The main obstacle preventing negotiations is the U.S. approach—one based on imposing excessive demands,” Araghchi explained. “We have, unfortunately, seen this pattern repeatedly. If the American side demonstrates readiness for a fair, balanced agreement based on mutual interests, the Islamic Republic of Iran will certainly respond. We have never left the negotiating table; diplomacy remains essential to our principles.”

When Trump left the 2015 Iran nuclear deal—an agreement that limited Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for the lifting of sanctions—during his first term and reimposed sanctions, he declared he would remove them only if Iran signed a new deal to completely dismantle its nuclear program. What he gained, however, was the acceleration of Iran’s nuclear activities and their unprecedented expansion.

Now, after the war he initiated in June, Trump says Iran should not only promise never to pursue a nuclear program but also cut ties with Resistance groups and limit the range of its missiles. Iranians have once again said they will not yield to his demands, though it is not clear what steps they will eventually take in response.

Those hoping to mediate between Iran and the U.S.—and those who circulate sensational stories about it—must look to Washington, not Tehran, argues Amir Ali Abolfath, an expert on American affairs.

“A lack of flexibility and an insistence on intransigence from the U.S. side are what currently make new negotiations inaccessible,” he said, “and what could permanently derail diplomacy for the foreseeable future, not a lack of mediators.”