US President Donald Trump said the United States is in 'very strong talks' with Iran and suggested a route to a 'complete and total resolution' of hostilities. Iranian officials immediately rejected that characterisation, stating no talks have begun. For now, signals point to narrow openings rather than a formal process.
Two attempted openings last year, in February and in June, were upended after US-backed Israeli strikes inside Iran, according to diplomats involved, weakening the limited trust that had formed between the sides. Those episodes continue to frame current calculations on both sides.
There has been discreet contact between previous lead negotiators - Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi and US envoy Steve Witkoff - but these are described as exploratory. Tehran now treats the Witkoff channel as a feint; Iran’s foreign ministry said the US president’s statements aim to ease energy prices and buy time for military planning.
Analysts read the White House messaging against domestic pressures to temper oil prices, support equities and show progress in containing a conflict driving global economic volatility. Mr Trump has sought an Iranian counterpart akin to the figure he highlights in Venezuela, calling that experience a model early in this war - an analogy critics say overlooks Iran’s five-decade system built to sideline reformists and repress dissent.
Mr Trump has also said his team is dealing with a 'top person' in the Islamic Republic. Regional reporting and several officials point to Mohammad‑Bagher Ghalibaf as the likely figure: former IRGC air force commander and police chief, later speaker of parliament. He has failed in four presidential bids and labelled those who protested nationwide in February 'enemies and terrorists'. In Washington’s calculus he is seen as a power broker who can speak to both security and political elites.
Sources say there have been indirect feelers towards Ghalibaf, with no public sign of traction. For Tehran, the risks are acute after a series of Israeli operations that killed senior officials, including Ali Larijani, a veteran security figure once seen as a possible go‑between. Ghalibaf is embedded in the most hardline networks; even so, some interlocutors consider him comparatively flexible. One person involved in mediation efforts called him 'the last man standing' with perceived ideological room to manoeuvre, noting Mr Trump warned that naming any candidate could place them in danger.
Ellie Geranmayeh of the European Council on Foreign Relations said this is the most notable track to monitor, while cautioning that such a meeting would only occur once a political breakthrough is near and extensive groundwork has been completed.
Ghalibaf has sharpened his public posture. In a post on X, he wrote that Iranians 'demand the complete and humiliating punishment of the aggressors' and insisted no negotiations with the United States have taken place. With both sides at war and senior figures focused on personal and system security, any encounter would be a significant step.
For now, activity sits largely on phone lines and in draft proposals circulated by intermediaries. New entrants include Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey - states not on the conflict’s front line whose leaders have cultivated close ties with Mr Trump and engaged in an expanded Arab‑Islamic forum. Oman, historically trusted by Tehran, says it is working to lower tensions and restore safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz.
Gulf capitals remain angry over what officials describe as Iran’s 'reckless' attacks on infrastructure and are reassessing relations. 'It will take decades to repair this rupture,' a senior Gulf official said. Pakistan, whose military and political leadership maintain warm relations with the US president, has offered to host high‑level talks as early as this weekend after Washington threatened strikes on Iran’s energy facilities. Iran’s new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has meanwhile highlighted Pakistan in recent remarks recalling his late father’s affinities.
No meeting has been confirmed. Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group described current exchanges as messages intended to restart ceasefire negotiations, stressing 'there are no talks at this moment' and doubting that common ground is close enough for substantive engagement.
Positions have hardened. Iran has listed demands widely seen in Washington as unacceptable, including closure of US bases in the region, reparations and firm guarantees against future attacks. Gulf states insist that Iran’s ballistic missiles and control measures in the Strait of Hormuz must be addressed. Mohammad Ali Shabani of Amwaj.media said Washington likely believes the war provides added bargaining power, while Tehran feels emboldened and views Hormuz as a negotiating chip. Mr Trump has paused a threatened strike on Iran’s power plants for five days, placing attention on a new deadline on Friday, when markets close.