Freezing Assets? U.S. and Iran Disagree
U.S.-Iran negotiations have descended into a case of conflicting accounts.
On the 11th, Reuters cited sources saying that the United States had agreed to unfreeze Iran's overseas assets—yet this claim was quickly denied by U.S. officials, with the White House stating that no such concession had been made to Iran.
This contradictory narrative is hardly surprising. Earlier reports indicated that the current U.S.-Iran talks were not direct face-to-face discussions, but rather conducted through separate rooms, with Pakistan serving as an intermediary relaying messages between the two sides.
Thus, Pakistan likely, in good faith toward facilitating negotiations, softened or reframed each side’s initially rigid demands to prevent an immediate breakdown—this indirect communication model inherently breeds misunderstandings or selective interpretations. Iran may have interpreted Pakistan’s message as an actual U.S. concession, while the U.S. may have never formally committed to anything.
Even with Pakistan acting as a go-between, the likelihood of a successful agreement remains slim. Iran’s core demands—including U.S. payment for war damages, recognition of Iran’s authority over the Strait of Hormuz, inclusion of Lebanon in a ceasefire deal, and lifting sanctions against Iran—have received no positive response from Washington so far.
Washington hasn’t even shown willingness to bargain; instead, it has urged Iran not to play games. The gap between the two sides’ positions is clear, and bridging it under an indirect communication framework seems almost impossible.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1862171279024320/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.