ConflictClarifier

Rastreador de la Crisis Irán-Golfo 2026
CC
Events Archive
strikeMar 25, 2026

"They Attacked Us While We Were Talking": Iran Says US Betrayed Diplomacy Twice, Rules Out New Talks

Summary

"They Attacked Us While We Were Talking": Iran Says US Betrayed Diplomacy Twice, Rules Out New Talks In an exclusive interview with India Today Global, Iran's Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Esmail Baghaei delivers a scathing indictment of US diplomacy, reveals that American strikes hit Iran mid-negotiation- twice- and warns that any ceasefire ultimatum is nothing but a cover for further war crimes against the Iranian people. The war between Iran, Israel, and the United States has now entered its 25th day — and Tehran is in no mood for diplomacy. In a rare and candid exclusive interview with India Today Global's Senior Executive Editor Geeta Mohan, Iran's Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Esmail Baghaei pulled no punches, painting a picture of a nation that believes it has been systematically deceived, bombed, and betrayed- not once, but twice- while sitting at the negotiating table. Baghaei revealed that Iran and the United States were deep in a structured diplomatic process, with technical talks on a possible nuclear agreement scheduled for Vienna, when American strikes hit Iranian soil on 28 February. It was not an isolated incident. In June, US forces had struck Iran just two days before a sixth round of negotiations was set to begin. "This was a betrayal of diplomacy," he said- a phrase he noted has now entered the common lexicon inside Iran. With Iranian cities under sustained bombardment, the Strait of Hormuz weaponised, and a school in Minab struck by two Tomahawk missiles that killed more than 170 children, Baghaei was unequivocal: Iran will defend itself for as long as the attacks continue, reparations will be sought, and no ultimatum from Washington will be treated as anything other than a declaration of intent to commit war crimes. On India, on Khamenei's health, on regime change, and on the future of the nuclear deal- Tehran speaks. And it speaks with fury. Q Are Iran and the U.S. currently in talks- direct or indirect? A There are no talks or negotiations between Iran and the United States, as there have been none throughout the past 25 days of what we consider their illegal war against Iran. We have a very catastrophic experience with US diplomacy. We were attacked twice within a span of nine months while we were in the middle of a negotiating process to resolve the nuclear issue. This was a betrayal of diplomacy- a phrase now widely used in Iran- and it happened not once but twice. No one can trust U.S. diplomacy. Our brave armed forces are currently focused on defending Iran's territory and sovereignty against this brutal, illegal war. Q Is there any room for mediation- perhaps through Oman, Pakistan, or other regional actors? A You can ask Oman's Foreign Minister about his experience mediating between Iran and the United States. The institution of mediation was also badly betrayed by the United States. Many countries in the region and beyond have reached out to Iran offering to mediate. We have received messages requesting negotiations, and we have responded- our position is clear: we will continue to defend ourselves. Iran is under constant bombardment by the United States and Israel. So can anyone believe their claims of diplomacy or mediation are credible when they started this war and continue attacking us? Pakistan is our neighbour. We have good relations with Pakistan, as we do with other neighbours, and we believe they have good intentions. Our Foreign Minister has been in contact with his Pakistani counterpart and with other neighbouring foreign ministers. These contacts are ongoing, and we understand that regional countries are concerned and are trying to help ease the situation. Q Who speaks for Iran diplomatically? Is there a coordinated diplomatic voice- the Foreign Minister, the Speaker of Parliament, or others? A The Foreign Minister is responsible for Iran's foreign diplomacy, and he is fulfilling that role. The system is absolutely coordinated, and decisions are made as and when necessary, at the appropriate time. The Speaker of Parliament, Mr. Ghalibaf, is a high-profile politician who functions within the mandates and authorities given under the constitution. The division of labour among our authorities is clear-cut and transparent. For now, we are 100% focused on defending Iran's sovereignty and territory against these brutal attacks. Q President Trump has spoken with Prime Minister Modi, who called for de-escalation and for keeping the Strait of Hormuz open. What is Iran's reaction? Is the U.S. looking to India to use its good offices with Iran? A I wish everyone who has the opportunity to speak with the United States would use it to remind them that their war is illegal and criminal, and that they are responsible for the threat to the Strait of Hormuz and all the resulting economic consequences for the international community. As for India, we have good relations. Our ministers have been in close contact in recent days. Indian vessels have been passing through the Strait of Hormuz after coordination with Iranian authorities, and we have facilitated their safe passage. India has not been participating in or assisting the aggression against Iran. Our bilateral relationship is one of mutual respect and mutual interest. Q The U.S. cited an 'imminent threat' from Iran as justification for its attack. What do you make of that- especially since the Pentagon itself later rejected that claim? A They know very well there was no imminent threat from Iran to the United States. They have changed their justifications multiple times. First they claimed an imminent threat; then they said it was because of an alleged Iranian nuclear weapon- even though in June they had claimed to have obliterated Iran's nuclear programme. Iran's nuclear programme is fully safeguarded by the IAEA, and there is not a single piece of evidence from the IAEA indicating it has been or is being weaponised. Then Marco Rubio said they attacked because they had intelligence that Israel was about to strike Iran and wanted to pre-empt. This is a whimsical war built on lies. It is not only a brutal assault on the Iranian nation, but an attack on the entire fabric of international law and the United Nations Charter. Q Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the GCC countries are worried about their energy infrastructure. Has Israel's energy infrastructure been struck? What is Iran's position on President Trump's proposed five-day moratorium? A Threatening to attack Iran's civilian infrastructure is itself a war crime. The United States is expanding the war across the whole region. From the outset, the U.S. used the airspace, military bases, and logistical assets stationed in Persian Gulf countries to attack Iran- effectively dragging the entire region into their war of choice. We have called on our neighbours: please do not allow the United States and Israel to abuse your soil and your territory to attack Iran. We have no intention of engaging in any hostility with our neighbours- we have been in a friendly mode with all of them and remain committed to those relationships. But their territories are being used by the United States to attack us, and under international law we are entitled to defend ourselves. Any ultimatum is a sign of deception and a clear intent to commit war crimes. Q Iran has stated that attacks on Gulf state bases were justified because those facilities were used to launch strikes on Iran. Does that mean Iran holds those countries responsible? A It is quite evident that a major part of U.S. attacks are being launched from the territories of Persian Gulf countries- their military bases and assets stationed there. President Trump himself tweeted about tanker aircraft stationed at a military base in Saudi Arabia. The missiles that struck the desalination facility on Qeshm Island came from one of the Persian Gulf countries. I wish the countries of the region had not allowed this U.S. military presence, because it has now proven to be a liability rather than a source of security or stability. Under international law, what other choice do we have but to fight back? Q What was the origin of the Tomahawk missiles that struck the school in Minab, killing more than 170 children? A It was one of the countries of the region. Two Tomahawk missiles struck this elementary school within 14 minutes of each other- clearly intended to maximise casualties. This was a war crime. No one can deny it was intentional and premeditated, carried out by the United States. I prefer not to name the country. Q Even if President Trump calls for a complete ceasefire, do you think Israel will stop? Is Netanyahu listening to Trump? A We are not in the business of distinguishing between the United States and Israel. They started this together. Even in June, when Israel initiated its aggression against Iran, the United States followed. Both are jointly responsible for all the atrocities being committed against Iranians. Q Iran is reportedly demanding reparations. What would those look like in terms of numbers? A Billions of dollars of damage have already been incurred, and many lives have been lost. Our authorities will tally the full accounting. But any aggressor must be held accountable and pay the cost of the war. More important to us, however, is ensuring that this vicious cycle- war, negotiations, ceasefire, then war again- does not repeat. The United Nations and the general membership must shoulder their responsibility and hold the United States and Israel accountable for what they have done to the world economy and to the peace and security of the Persian Gulf region. Q Your Foreign Minister has indicated openness to a nuclear deal. Are we looking at a revival of the JCPOA? A It is very difficult for anyone to believe such claims given our clear experience. We had the nuclear deal in 2015; the United States withdrew unilaterally. We then attempted several times to reach a new agreement on the nuclear issue. On both occasions, they torpedoed the negotiating table and attacked Iran in the middle of the process. They are not serious about diplomacy. Iran, by contrast, has consistently demonstrated its seriousness about negotiation as a means of resolving disputes. But the trust has been badly damaged- even though we were previously negotiating in an atmosphere of near-zero trust. Iran's sincerity was betrayed. I would urge you to speak with our Omani friends as well; their Foreign Minister mediated for over a year and knows precisely how much progress was made before the United States chose to torpedo the process. Q Iran has announced it will accept payment in Chinese yuan rather than U.S. dollars- effectively challenging the petrodollar. How significant is this, and are you not concerned about the fate of countries that previously challenged dollar dominance? A Our number-one priority right now is to protect our national security and defend our people against this barbaric act of aggression. We cannot allow speculation to distract us from that. What I will say is that the United States itself has weaponised its currency against the entire world economy for decades- sanctioning countries, pressuring states across the Global South. That is what they have been doing for years against almost every country. Q Will Iran continue to charge vessels or countries a fee for passing through the Strait of Hormuz? A Absolutely. A series of measures is in place for passage through the Strait of Hormuz due to the war situation imposed on Iran. Under international law, a coastal state cannot allow its enemies- the aggressors- to use these straits to further their acts of aggression. What Iran is doing is ensuring that vessels belonging to or associated with the United States, Israel, or other countries that are in any manner participating in or assisting the aggression are not permitted passage. Other states that have nothing to do with this act of aggression may pass through the Strait of Hormuz after the necessary coordination with Iranian authorities, to ensure that passage is conducted safely and securely. This is part of a responsible approach. Q Is the Trump administration's proposed five-day moratorium a genuine offer, or a decoy to buy time while the U.S. amphibious strike group moves toward the theater- with Kharg Island as the ultimate objective? A We cannot underestimate any scenario. We have experience with deception and with the abuse of diplomatic processes as cover for preparing aggression. Our armed forces and authorities take all possibilities into account. What is clear is that such ultimatums are a sign of deception and a declaration of intent to commit war crimes. Threatening to attack civilian targets is a clear intent to commit war crimes. And everyone knows that Iran has the will, the capacity, and the capability to fight back against any such acts. Q President Trump has spoken of controlling the Strait of Hormuz 'with the next Ayatollah,' implying regime change is a goal. What is the status of Supreme Leader Khamenei's health? And looking ahead, who leads Iran- Mojtaba Khamenei, President Pezeshkian, Foreign Minister Araghchi, or Speaker Ghalibaf? A American authorities say whatever they wish to say- this is not the first time we have heard such things. It is for the world audience to make their own judgement. What matters is that Iran has a sophisticated, well-established system rooted in a popular revolution, grounded in Iran's identity and in the people's right to self-determination. The Supreme Leader is fine. Our system is working efficiently. Our armed forces are acting in accordance with their plans to defend Iran. Most importantly, our people are united against this barbaric act of aggression. As for leadership structure: every person in our system acts within the mandates and authorities granted by the constitution. The division of labour is clear-cut and transparent. Q What are Iran's expectations from India? And what does peace ultimately look like from Iran's perspective? A Every country has responsibilities under international law. India is a pioneering country in the developing world and a very important member of the Non-Aligned Movement. We have good bilateral and historic relations. If we want a future based on the rule of law- not on the rule of wind and force- then everyone must stand up against this clear injustice against a civilisational state and call out the culprits. I understand the different relationships various countries have with the United States and Israel, but what is at stake here is the rule of international law and of morality itself. India and other countries can play a very important role in de-escalating the situation. The clear fact is that the Iranian nation is under a brutal attack. Those who started this war must stop it. We are defending ourselves, and we will continue to do so for as long as it takes- because this is not a war of Iran's choosing. Q Are talks completely off the table? A We were in talks with the United States. We were in a serious diplomatic process when they attacked Iran- when they betrayed that process. Please remember: we were attacked on 28 February. We were supposed to meet the following Monday. We had agreed to continue our talks in Vienna to discuss the technical details of a possible deal, and they attacked Iran. This was not the first time. In June, they attacked Iran just two days before the sixth round of negotiations. Iran is defending itself and will continue to do so as long as these attacks continue.

Actors involved

USIranIsrael

Sources

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

The US and its allies Britain, France and Germany are pushing other countries on the UN nuclear watchdog's board to pass a resolution next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, diplomats said on Friday. If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

The US launched an air war against Tehran on February 28 in which, together with Israel, it destroyed or badly damaged Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities. Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

Resolution would be culmination of standoff over IAEA's access to nuclear sites A resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

A draft text for the resolution has yet to be formally submitted to the board and negotiations between countries over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. A draft is usually formally submitted early in the week of a board meeting. As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes.

Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons. It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making a bomb. The amount it has enriched to that level is "a matter of serious concern" to the IAEA. The IAEA believes well over 200 kg of that highly enriched uranium has survived the bombardments and is held in a tunnel complex at Isfahan and at the Natanz facility.

Location: Jerusalem
strikeUnverifiedUSIranChina
1 source

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on the Turkish bank Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi, alleging it facilitated the transfer of Iranian oil revenues into cash and gold. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated these measures are part of "Operation Economic Outcast," an initiative launched following more than six months of conflict to pressure Iran.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranEURussiaChinaUkraineHamas
1 source

Rabobank reported that geopolitical developments, including Russian statements regarding potential peace talks in Ukraine and US-Iran hostilities, continue to dominate market sentiment, though analysts noted these claims remain unverified. The bank also cited unconfirmed reports that South Korea may deploy forces to the Strait of Hormuz and that Israel has stated regime change in Tehran is a primary objective, while noting that Ukrainian media reports of an impending northern Russian offensive lack independent verification.

Location: Tehran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranRussiaUkraine
1 source

The White House is now apparently using Russian tactics to convince the American public that the war in Iran is not, in fact, a war. When asked by reporters at the White House on Thursday whether the most intense sustained air campaign by American forces since the invasion of Iraq would be over by the midterms, Vice President JD Vance replied: “I wouldn’t call it a war.

” Vladimir Putin said much the same thing when he invaded Ukraine. Russia was not fighting a war either, the Kremlin insisted; it was merely conducting a “special military operation.” If that comparison strikes you as shocking, consider the contours of the two conflicts.

A vastly more powerful military launched a punishing offensive against a smaller, less well-equipped adversary, inflicted enormous damage without achieving a decisive resolution, and then found itself drawn into a longer, grinding conflict with no clear way out.

The motivations behind the wars may be different, and they’re playing out in different theaters, but the pattern is eerily similar. Now, so too is the attempt by those in power to control how the public understands, and even what it is allowed to call, the obvious war unfolding in front of them.

If This Isn’t a War, What Is? Let us take a moment to assess what exactly has happened since February 28, when the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury. The opening U.S.-Israeli attack killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, along with the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the defense minister and various other senior officials.

According to the U.S. military’s own accounting, the first 38 days of major combat operations involved more than 10,200 sorties and 13,500 strikes. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) says those attacks damaged or destroyed more than 85 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and naval defense industrial base, while knocking out 82 percent of its air-defense missile systems.

The U.S. sent carrier strike groups and warships into the region, later imposing a military blockade on Iranian ports. Meanwhile, American and allied air defenses intercepted more than 6,000 Iranian attack drones and 1,500 ballistic missiles fired at U.

S. forces, Israel and American partners across the Middle East. More than 50,000 U.S. service members remain deployed across the region. The fighting has killed 18 U.S. service members and at least 8,000 people across Iran, Lebanon, Israel and the Gulf states.

More than 750 U.S. service members have been wounded. Last month, during a lull in the fighting, the U.S. Treasury unveiled a sanctions package likened to an “economic D-day” that is designed to make Iran an “economic outcast” and cut the adversary off from all available forms of economic support.

In the announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly declared that Iran had been “at war against America” for 47 years. This week, the shooting resumed; the U.S. hit targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran blasted missiles at targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Iraq.

All this from an administration that almost exactly a year ago launched a rapid rebrand of the Defense Department into the “Department of War”. No boots on the ground, though, so it’s not a war, right? Tell It Kind of Like It Is Even the very best snake-oil salesman would have a hard time convincing people that the war in Iran isn’t a war.

So why is JD Vance even trying? Well, if there’s one thing politicians understand better than anyone, it’s the importance of language and rhetoric. Words have immense power; a well-written speech can unite millions of people, and a catchy slogan like Make America Great Again can come to represent an entire political philosophy.

But war is a pesky word. For one, it implies there will eventually be a winner and a loser. It also brings with it certain expectations—and some very difficult questions. What is the objective? How many people will die? When will it end? And, perhaps most dangerously of all: was it worth it?

Those are not questions the White House wants Americans to be asking. Trump built a substantial part of his political identity around ending, rather than beginning, America’s “endless wars.” When Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding in June, the White House presented it as proof that Trump’s America First approach could deliver peace without another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

Then the hostilities started again. Earlier this week, Trump shared a Truth Social graphic declaring that “Hormuz Oil Volumes are BACK!”, saying 18 million barrels a day were once again leaving the Strait, compared with 20 million before the war. No independent commodity tracking company or energy analyst appeared to verify Trump’s claims.

But most Americans won’t be checking tanker-tracking dashboards. What they’ll care about is the cold, hard fact that diesel hit a new record price this morning, soaring to an average of $5.85 a gallon for the first time ever. Gasoline is $4.15 a gallon on average, compared with $3.

20 at this time last year, according to AAA. The numbers on the sign at the gas station and the price on the grocery receipt aren’t affected by Trump’s tall tales, but they’ll surely affect how Americans vote at the midterms. When viewed in this light, Vance’s attempt to discourage reporters from “call[ing] it a war” begins to make sense.

A war is something that we want to end. It tends to result in a winner and a loser. And its worth is up for debate at all times. A different kind of engagement that doesn’t quite meet the threshold of war—say, a special military operation—is not exposed to the same kind of scrutiny.

Vance effectively made that case himself. “When you ask, ‘When will this end?’ You’re asking me a question like, ‘When will the Iranians stop shooting at ships?’” he said. By that logic, there is no American war—only recurring Iranian provocations that require American military responses.

That’s exactly the logic applied by Putin to Ukraine and supposed expansion of NATO. Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly invoked the War Powers Resolution to challenge Trump’s authority to keep fighting Iran without specific congressional authorization.

The law generally gives a president 60 days after U.S. forces enter “hostilities” to secure congressional approval or bring those hostilities to an end. That makes the pauses in fighting hugely important. When the original 60-day deadline arrived in May, Trump told Congress that the temporary ceasefire reached in April meant the hostilities that began on February 28 had ended.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the War Powers clock could “pause, or stop” when the shooting did. That position is disputed by legal experts, but its political utility is obvious. If every new outbreak of fighting can be treated as a separate skirmish, rather than part of one continuous war, the administration can argue that a fresh 60-day clock starts each time.

Vance’s insistence that there is no continuing “war” fits neatly for an administration that has already tried to divide six months of conflict into separate periods of hostilities, interrupted by ceasefires and pauses. This brings us back to Moscow.

The Kremlin’s own linguistic trick was also about making one sprawling war sound smaller, more limited and more manageable than it really was. From the very beginning of the invasion, Putin described the war as a special military operation. Only after two years of grinding warfare did Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov openly declare Russia to be in a “state of war”—and even then, he said the transformation had occurred because the “collective West” had joined the fight against Russia.

Vance is playing a similar game, but in reverse. Only now—with soaring fuel prices, mounting casualties, concerns over the military’s munitions stockpiles, and midterm elections on the horizon—is the conflict no longer a war. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, though, and the American people aren’t stupid.

Vance and the White House may discover in November that voters are perfectly capable of recognizing a war, even when the vice president doesn’t want to call it one.

Location: Iran