How Did Iranians React to Trump’s “Rhetorical Retreat”?
WANA (Mar 24) – Hours before Trump’s deadline for reopening the Strait of Hormuz was set to expire—and after threats to target Iran’s electricity infrastructure—the U.S. president suddenly changed his tone. He stepped back from the prospect of an attack, extended the deadline by five days, and claimed that Tehran and Washington were engaged in “constructive” talks. But in Tehran, that narrative found little traction—neither at the official level nor on the streets.
Iranian officials flatly denied any negotiations were taking place, while citizens interviewed by WANA viewed Trump’s latest remarks not as a sign of peace, but as a continuation of the same old pattern: threats, pressure, and deception.
Tehran: “No One Buys This Anymore”
As debate intensified over Trump’s claim that talks were underway and his decision to delay further threats, reactions from several Tehran residents speaking to a WANA correspondent made one thing clear: at least at the level of public sentiment, there is deep distrust toward any conciliatory gesture coming from Washington.
One Tehran resident, responding to the latest messaging, said: “We should not back down, because he didn’t let even his smallest crime go unanswered. The smallest of them was the Dena destroyer. Our boys were burned alive because of that crime. We should never back down because of what he did.”
More than a purely emotional outburst, the statement reflects a broader sentiment among part of Iranian society: in the middle of a war, any talk of negotiation that comes hand in hand with threats and attacks is no longer seen as diplomacy, but as deceit.
People walk past a huge billboard displaying images of Iranian missiles, amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, March 16, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)
Another citizen, in even sharper terms, said: “If we trust him [Trump], we’ve already lost—we’ve lost. He showed us his so-called brotherhood; we saw what he did. He is burning all of us together.”
In one of the most direct public reactions, a woman in Tehran told WANA that if Trump genuinely cared about the Iranian people, there were far less costly and far more humane ways to prove it: “He didn’t come for the people of Iran. If he really cared about the Iranian people, he could have lifted sanctions in many other ways. The children here are sick—they need medicine. So many of our basic needs are tied to these sanctions. He could have done those things to prove his so-called brotherhood to us. We should not let people be deceived. Even if we have disagreements within our own family, that doesn’t mean we should sell ourselves to outsiders.”
This remark highlights one of the most important social layers of the story: much of the public reaction is not necessarily an ideological defence of the political system, but a rejection of the notion that external pressure, sanctions, and military threats can be legitimised under the label of “supporting the people.”
People look on after a strike, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, March 12, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)
A Public Tired of “Negotiations That Repeat Every Day”
Among the reactions, some voices struck a different tone—not one of wartime fervour, but of exhaustion with a grinding and seemingly endless cycle.
Mahshid Moradi, a Tehran resident, was asked about Trump’s new post and his claim that he had been in contact with the Iranian side. She replied: “You can’t really be behind the scenes and judge politicians or know what they’re thinking, but whether they want to negotiate or not—I think we’ve been stuck in this same negotiation for years. Today it’s negotiation, tomorrow it’s negotiation, and the day after tomorrow something else happens. I highly doubt there are any negotiations at all; in fact, they are not negotiating. I don’t know what happens next, but I really doubt such a thing is taking place.”
This may be the most accurate reflection of the mindset of a segment of Iranian society right now: no real hope for a deal, no belief in Washington’s narrative, and no confidence that what is being called “negotiation” is actually negotiation.
In another part of the interview, despite rejecting war, she emphasised a crucial point: “I agree that people should be able to live with dignity. Peace or war—war is never a good thing. But peace should not come at any price either. I do not accept war; I do not want war in any country. But overall, I want to say that I hope peace returns to the lives of the Iranian people, in whatever way possible—but in the best possible way for the benefit of the people of Iran.”
This strand of public reaction underscores a critical duality: society is weary of war, but that exhaustion does not necessarily translate into accepting any form of imposed peace.
A man holds a picture of Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, during the funeral of Iranian security chief Ali Larijani and victims of the IRIS Dena warship at Enghelab Square, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, March 18, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)
“Trump Is Playing a Game”
Another man in Tehran described the U.S. president’s latest remarks as part of a psychological game: “This is a game he is playing. It’s natural that they call him a gambler—not only because he plays with people’s minds, but because he deceives them. He doesn’t realize that the people of Iran no longer fall for this.”
In fact, if one common thread can be drawn from these conversations, it is this: people may be tired of pressure, war, sanctions, and attrition, but they have also become deeply sceptical of any “performance of negotiation” that comes from a position of threat.
Tehran’s Official Response: “There Are No Negotiations”
Alongside these street-level reactions, officials of the Islamic Republic also rejected Trump’s claims in a coordinated and unequivocal manner.
A knowledgeable source, responding to the media narrative, stressed that “no negotiations have been underway, nor are any taking place,” adding that this psychological warfare would neither restore the Strait of Hormuz to its pre-war status nor bring calm back to energy markets. According to the source, Trump’s five-day ultimatum signals the continuation of the U.S. and Israeli campaign of pressure and aggression against the Iranian people, and Iran’s response will remain the continuation of broad national defence.
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of parliament, also wrote on his personal page: “No negotiations with the United States have taken place. The fake news is intended to manipulate financial and oil markets and to help the U.S. and Israel escape the swamp they are trapped in.”
Politically, this is highly significant because Tehran is trying to separate two concepts: on the one hand, rejecting the existence of negotiations; and on the other, accusing Washington of engaging in market manipulation and psychological operations.
Iran Rejects Trump’s Negotiation Narrative as Officials Warn of “Decisive” Response to Any Strike
WANA (Mar 23) – Tehran has firmly denied any negotiations with the United States, pushing back against President Donald Trump’s recent claims of backchannel contacts and possible progress toward a deal, while senior Iranian officials warned that any attack on the country’s critical infrastructure would trigger an immediate and forceful response. In one of […]
Esmail Baghaei, the Foreign Ministry spokesperson, also denied any negotiations or talks with the United States over the past 24 days, stressing that the Islamic Republic’s position on the Strait of Hormuz has not changed; Iran’s conditions and framework for ending what it calls the imposed war have not changed; claims of negotiations do not mean Tehran has altered its position.
Later, the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters also declared that the contradictory and deceptive behavior of the U.S. president would not create any complacency on the war front, because, in its words, the enemy’s psychological warfare has become worn-out and ineffective.
In one of the sharpest warnings, Mohsen Rezaei told the United States that if Iran’s electricity infrastructure is targeted, the response would no longer be limited to “an eye for an eye”; instead, the U.S. would be paralyzed in the region and would pay a heavy price in the Persian Gulf.
Why Doesn’t Tehran Consider This “Negotiation”?
On the surface, Trump says contacts have been taking place; Tehran says no negotiations are underway. This contradiction is not merely semantic—it reflects a strategic disagreement over how the current situation is defined.
The dominant view in Tehran is that even if messages have been exchanged, they have been in the nature of mediation, warnings, message-passing, or crisis-management efforts—not negotiation in the real sense of the word.
For the Islamic Republic, the term “negotiation” carries heavy political baggage; accepting it in the middle of attacks and threats could be interpreted as a sign of retreat.
That is why Tehran is trying to cement the following narrative:
- the United States did not enter talks from a position of strength;
- rather, after threatening Iran’s vital infrastructure and recognizing the potential costs of escalation, it moderated its tone;
- and now, by claiming “constructive talks,” it is trying both to calm markets and preserve an image of psychological superiority.
Pictures of child victims killed in strikes are displayed at Tajrish Bazaar, ahead of Nowruz, the Iranian New Year, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, March 19, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)
The War Is Not Only on the Battlefield—It Is Also in Oil Markets and in People’s Minds
At this stage of the crisis, Trump’s remarks about postponing an attack, the Strait of Hormuz, and “constructive talks” cannot be viewed as a simple diplomatic statement. They serve simultaneous purposes on three fronts:
- The military front: A temporary reduction in the likelihood of a direct strike on Iranian infrastructure, without fully abandoning the threat.
- The energy front: Preventing a sudden shock to oil markets and containing global fears over the closure—or insecurity—of the Strait of Hormuz.
- The psychological front: Projecting the impression that Iran, under military pressure, has been pushed toward contact and dialogue.
But what emerges from both the reactions in Tehran and the official statements is that, inside Iran—at least for now—this narrative has found few buyers.
The reactions recorded in Tehran reveal an important point: Iranian society is not necessarily monolithic, but in the face of external pressure and Washington’s contradictory narratives, a shared skepticism has taken shape.
Some are angry, some are exhausted, some are anti-war, some distrust both sides—but across nearly all of these voices, one line keeps repeating: People do not want war—but neither are they persuaded by a peace that comes through the barrel of threats, sanctions, and attacks.
In such an atmosphere, Trump’s claim of “constructive talks” is being seen in Tehran not as a sign that the crisis is ending, but rather as part of a larger battle over narrative, resolve, and public opinion—a battle whose most important arena, at least for now, may not be the negotiating room at all, but the street, the oil market, and the minds of the people.
Trump Delays Iran Strike, Tehran Denies Talks
WANA (Mar 23) – On the 24th day of a war that began on February 28 with U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran, Donald Trump—who on Sunday issued a 48-hour ultimatum threatening to “destroy” Iran’s power infrastructure if the Strait of Hormuz was not fully reopened—has stepped back from that position, announcing a delay in […]
