WANA (Apr 12) – Amid ongoing regional diplomatic activity and growing speculation about the future of negotiations, Mohammad Marandi, an Iranian analyst and media advisor, outlined a dual-track approach in an interview with Al Mayadeen—one that combines “readiness for war” with a “firm stance in negotiations.”

 

Marandi expressed optimism regardless of whether an agreement is reached, stating that “there is no doubt that Iran has already emerged victorious in the war.” His remarks come as negotiations remain overshadowed by deep mistrust toward the United States.

 

Referring to the trilateral meeting in Islamabad, Marandi said the primary reason behind such engagements is a lack of trust in Washington. He argued that the United States has previously provided misleading information, citing past actions.

 

He also highlighted the role of Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Speaker of Iran’s Parliament, noting that he has been granted broad authority by the country’s leadership and that key issues to be discussed in Islamabad have already been reviewed at high levels.

 

Marandi emphasized that Iran is “preparing for war,” while continuing negotiations to demonstrate to the international community that the United States is the aggressor. He described the talks as a temporary opportunity being given to Washington.

 

He further stated that Iran faces no difficulty in decision-making, placing the burden instead on the opposing side. Marandi also expressed hope that U.S. policymakers would not prioritize Israel’s interests over their own due to the influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups.

 

According to Marandi, some senior U.S. officials have acknowledged that Iran does not pose a direct threat to the United States. He also pointed to the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz, describing it as “open but under Iran’s control,” and asserted that Washington is unable to alter this reality.

 

In conclusion, Marandi said that if an agreement is reached, former U.S. President Donald Trump would need to accept Iran’s demands, including those related to Lebanon.

 

He warned that without sufficient authority on the U.S. side to make decisions, the negotiations would be futile. In such a scenario, he suggested that a return to military conflict remains possible—one whose outcome, he claimed, is already clear.