TEHRAN – On the last day of April, Oman prepared to hold a third round indirect nuclear talk between Iran and the United States, and the Washington Post published an article entitled “Iranian elites support nuclear talks in favor of nuclear talks.”
Written by Susannah George and Nilo Tabrizy, this work recycles tired stories. “Sanswers” Iran, trembling under economic tensions, is forced to negotiate hopelessly with Washington.
But peeling off this layer of Western media ployment will only bring the articles to how they spin the threads of despair, leaning against a curated slice of shadowy “analysts” and Iranian media, crumbling like a house of cards.
Iran is far from a frail supplicant and has come close to the calm and these consultations of the chess grandmaster. And it was the US that pulled out of the “maximum pressure” campaign to seek dialogue on Iranian terms, not Iran.
Faulty premise: Who blinked first?
The central claim of the Post (the claim that the Iranian elites are surprised by the consultations is a collapses under scrutiny. It was the US that launched the dialogue, far from sueing for relief.
In March, US President Donald Trump wrote a letter to the leaders of the Islamic Revolution. Ayatollahs have sailed Ali Khamenei through Emirati’s diplomat Anwar Ghagash.
Tehran responses were characteristically measured. Rather than grove this opening, we engaged in indirect consultations through Oman, which was strictly limited to nuclear issues.
“Let me be clear: we will never negotiate any issues other than the nuclear program,” declared Foreign Minister Abbas Aragut after finishing the third round of talks on Saturday, after highlighting the red lines etched in Iran’s diplomatic DNA.
This is not a hopeless act. It is the nation’s calculated manipulation that weathered the 40 years of sanctions and hybrid warfare.
Ayatollah Khamenei repeatedly rejected negotiations with a “bullying country” that “will control and impose its own expectations.”
His skepticism is rooted in history. The US issued direct and indirect threats to Iran for “all options” on the table. It then became part of the negotiations that created the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Action Plan (JCPOA).
Washington then unilaterally waived the agreement despite its commitment to Iran’s implementation, as confirmed by international organizations. Finally, under Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign in 2018, it replicated crushing sanctions, inflicting “unnecessary suffering” on ordinary Iranians.
Trump, who again flip-floped in his second term, reportedly shifted the focus of his letter to Iranian leaders only on the nuclear issue and adopted it with respect.
This was in stark contrast to his previous “maximum pressure” command, which ignored Iran’s red line and targeted multiple areas, including its defensive capabilities.
Although Iran rejected Washington’s “maximum pressure” approach, Tehran’s calculated response to Trump’s letter finally paved the way for Oman-mediated indirect nuclear negotiations.
Tehran’s willingness to engage is not a weakness in Iran, but a change in the US attitude. After months of “maximum pressure” and “bomb Iran” rhetoric, Washington’s overture shows the failure of previous policies.
Meanwhile, Iran chose to negotiate as a tactical move while maintaining its advantage. This is a clear advantage in three important areas: It is the indirect nature of strict restrictions on consultations on the nuclear issue, venue choice and negotiations.
Hardens under economic pressure
The portrayal of Iran’s economy as a card house ignores critical reality. Sanctions have not beaten Tehran.
While inflation and currency fluctuations are a real challenge, Iran’s resistance economy has fueled innovation in areas ranging from drone technology to pharmaceuticals.
Domestic manufacturing currently supplies 85% of its medical needs, and high-tech startups are thriving despite the financial lockdown.
Tehran has transformed adversity into innovation. It’s a defense product that rivals global standards, a drug sector that is opposed to isolation, and a nuclear program that humbles the enemy.
Internationally, Iran is locked in an increasingly multipolar order. Trade with China reached $18 billion in 2023, but membership in Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and BRICS opens an alternative economic corridor.
Leaders of the Islamic Revolution recently highlighted ongoing national projects in infrastructure, energy and defense, arguing that “people issues should not be dependent on consultation.”
Leadership Continuity: The Myth of Divorce
The claims in the post “new consensus” of Iran’s “elite” misunderstand Tehran’s power structure.
Iran’s strategic decisions have flowed not only from presidency and “elites,” but from leaders from the Islamic Revolution, the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), and other institutions.
In his 2021 speech, Ayatollah Khamenei explained the country’s decision-making process. “Focus policy is shaped not by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but by the country’s high-level institutions and senior officials.”
He emphasized that while the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is taking part in the process, it is not the ultimate decision maker.
Instead, he described the ministry as an enforcer of foreign policy decisions. This is done in social media-like forums where all the major officials exist.
Author’s Blind Spots: Problems of Expertise
Post analysis suffers from another important flaw. The authors and the “experts” they cite lack true expertise in Iran.
Nilo Tabrizy, a video journalist specializing in “Visual Forensics,” has no background in Iranian geopolitics.
“Analysts” such as Gregory Brew of Ian Bremer’s Eurasian Group are consulting firms that bond with Western corporate interests, recycle old stories of elite discord.
Anonymous Analyst and Cherry Pick’s Iranian media quotes are their sources (anonymous Analyst and Cherry Pick’s Iranian media quotes) to provide meaningful insights.
They introduce “expert” Kusha Sephat, an assistant professor of sociology at Tehran University, as “close to Iran’s conservative leader” and provide no evidence of this claim.
Sefat may provide useful analysis of sociology, but he clearly lacks knowledge about what is happening “behind the scenes” between Iranian leaders and the president.
Furthermore, by framing Iranian pragmatism as weakness, this post spares Washington its role in destabilizing Western Asia.
A masterclass in selective amnesia, this article overlooks Iran’s resilience. It lasted longer than Saddam Hussein’s US-backed invasion, endured the hybrid war by the Israeli regime, but also changed sanctions to a catalyst for technological autonomy.
Furthermore, we cannot mention major strategic alliances, such as the Iranian 25 Cooperation Agreement in 2021 or the Iran-Russia 20-year Strategic Agreement.
This is not journalism, it is a war of stories. George and Tabliji’s desperate portrayal of Iran reflect the declined unipolar ideas of the past. The West, clinging to the outdated ratios, risks losing sight of the larger picture.
Tehran engages in the world not from a place of weakness, but with hard-earned strength. The US may have drafted the letter, but Iran holds a pen that writes its future.
To truly understand Tehran, the Western media must abandon the cliches of outdated orientalists and evaluate Iran for what it truly is. This is a nation defined by strength and innovation deeply rooted in one of the world’s oldest civilizations.