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 the clearest official responses yet to Trump’s remarks, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said Washington had indeed sent messages in recent days through several friendly countries, but stressed that these should not be interpreted as negotiations.

 

“Over the past few days, messages were received through some friendly countries conveying the U.S. request for negotiations to end the war, and they were responded to appropriately and in accordance with the country’s principled positions,” Baghaei said.

 

He added that Iran’s response included explicit warnings over the consequences of any attack on the country’s vital infrastructure.

 

“In these responses, the necessary warnings were given regarding the grave consequences of any aggression against Iran’s vital infrastructure, and it was emphasized that any action against Iran’s energy infrastructure would be met with a decisive, immediate, and effective response by Iran’s armed forces.”

 

Baghaei also categorically rejected claims that any direct or indirect talks had taken place during the current conflict.

 

“The spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also rejected any negotiation or dialogue with the United States during the 24 days of the imposed war and stressed that the Islamic Republic of Iran’s position regarding the Strait of Hormuz and the conditions for ending the imposed war has not changed.”

 

Qalibaf: ‘Fake News’ Meant to Manipulate Oil and Financial Markets

Separately, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf dismissed reports of negotiations as disinformation designed to manage markets and distract from what he described as a worsening strategic position for Washington and Israel.

 

In a post on his personal account, Ghalibaf wrote: “Our people demand the full and regret-inducing punishment of the aggressors.”

 

He added: “All officials are standing firmly behind the Leader and the people until this goal is achieved.”

 

And in his bluntest line, he directly denied any U.S.-Iran talks: “No negotiations have taken place with the United States. The fake news is meant to manipulate the financial and oil markets and to escape from the quagmire in which America and Israel are trapped.”

A sign in tribute to Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is displayed on a street, after he was killed in Israeli and U.S. strikes on Saturday, in Tehran, Iran, March 4, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

Tehran Moves to Counter Trump’s Narrative

The statements came after Trump publicly claimed that Tehran had sought talks and suggested that a potential agreement could remove the need for military escalation.

 

Iranian officials, however, have moved quickly to frame the U.S. messages not as diplomacy, but as an attempt to step back from an earlier threat. According to Iranian accounts, Trump had reportedly set a 48-hour ultimatum, warning that if no agreement was reached,

 

Iranian electricity infrastructure could be targeted. Yet only hours before that deadline expired — and after Iran announced the destruction of electricity-related infrastructure linked to U.S. and Israeli interests in the region — Trump appeared to soften his tone and pivot toward what Iranian officials describe as an imaginary negotiation track.

 

Iranian sources say the country’s position remains unchanged: until there is a full U.S. retreat, evacuation of American bases in the region, payment of compensation, and credible guarantees against renewed aggression, neither the war will end nor will the Strait of Hormuz be reopened.

 

Some informed sources have gone further, suggesting that even after any potential end to hostilities, the Strait of Hormuz may not return to its pre-war status, signaling that Tehran may seek to preserve a long-term strategic lever in the regional energy equation.

 

Iranian commentators have also argued that, given what they describe as two previous acts of aggression during periods of negotiation, no serious Iranian official would accept talks under current conditions. In that reading, Trump’s public references to “constructive contacts” are being interpreted in Tehran less as diplomacy and more as psychological warfare — aimed at reshaping perceptions, calming oil markets, and projecting momentum at a time of mounting military and strategic pressure.

 

Against that backdrop, Iranian media close to official circles have also hinted at possible retaliatory actions targeting Tel Aviv and certain regional U.S.-Israeli partners, suggesting that Tehran wants to make clear that any talk of negotiation should not be mistaken for de-escalation.

 

A War of Signals, Not Talks

Taken together, the remarks by Baghaei and Ghalibaf amount to a coordinated official rebuttal of Trump’s narrative: yes, messages were exchanged through intermediaries — but no, there were no negotiations.

 

For Tehran, the distinction is crucial. The Iranian line is that the United States did not open a diplomatic channel from a position of strength, but sent messages after its threats risked triggering a costly escalation. That framing allows Iranian officials to simultaneously reject the image of political retreat, preserve their deterrence posture, and reinforce the argument that the current confrontation is being fought not only on the battlefield, but also in the oil market and in the broader war of perception.

 

What Was Trump Trying to Achieve With His New Iran Remarks?

WANA (Mar 23) – U.S. President Donald Trump, in his latest interview on Iran, made a fresh series of claims regarding Tehran’s nuclear program, the prospects of a deal, how Washington could gain access to Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, and the existence of backchannel contacts — claims that, coming at the same time as explicit […]

Read More...