Iran urges US to avoid “excessive demands” in Islamabad talks
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Nasser Kanaani (referred to in some reports as Ismail Bekayi) stated that the outcome of the ongoing negotiations in Islamabad will depend largely on whether Washington refrains from what Tehran describes as “excessive demands” and “illegal” conditions. According to the statement, Iran links any possible progress directly to a change in US negotiating behavior.
In a post shared on his account on the X social media platform, the spokesperson provided rare public insight into the agenda of the talks taking place in the Pakistani capital. He underlined that the discussions had been “intense and lengthy” for the Iranian delegation, indicating that the meeting schedule was fully occupied and technically demanding.
The talks reportedly covered a broad range of strategic and contentious issues. Among the main topics, according to the Iranian side, were the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, the nuclear file, war reparations, the lifting of sanctions, and the complete end of military actions directed against Iran and the wider region. By listing these points together, Tehran signaled that it views the negotiations as a comprehensive package, not a limited or single-issue dialogue.
“The success of this diplomatic process,” the spokesperson stressed, “depends on the seriousness and goodwill of the other party, on its willingness to avoid excessive demands and unlawful requests, and on its acceptance of Iran’s legitimate rights and interests.” With this formulation, Iran framed the talks as a test of US credibility, stressing mutual obligations rather than unilateral concessions.
The Iranian official also reminded audiences of Tehran’s deep mistrust toward Washington. He emphasized that Iran has not forgotten what it sees as a long record of US “failure to honor commitments” and “malicious behavior.” At the same time, he pointed to what Tehran describes as grave crimes committed by both the United States and Israel, making clear that these actions “will not be forgiven” in Iran’s political memory, even if tactical negotiations continue.
These remarks underline a dual Iranian approach: engaging in a diplomatic track in Islamabad while maintaining a hard rhetorical line against both the US and Israel. For Tehran, participation in high‑stakes talks does not imply a softening of its long‑standing narrative about Western responsibility for regional instability and civilian suffering.
Parallel to the official comments, reports emerging from Iranian media rejected widespread Western claims that the atmosphere in Islamabad was marked by “severe tension” between the US and Iranian delegations. According to those reports, such characterizations are “not reflective of reality” and are considered speculative.
Citing the negotiation protocol, Iranian outlets emphasized that no media organization was allowed inside the hotel where the talks were being held. Only members of the US and Iranian delegations, along with Pakistani officials, were present. This closed‑door format, they argued, means that no journalist had direct access to observe the proceedings from within the negotiation rooms.
On that basis, Tehran‑aligned media dismissed circulating stories about “intense confrontations,” alleged “refusals to shake hands,” or claims that a “new figure from Tehran” had dramatically joined the talks mid‑process. All such reports were described as inaccurate or unfounded reconstructions by outsiders who were not present at the venue.
The insistence on confidentiality also serves a broader purpose for all parties involved. In highly sensitive negotiations-especially those touching on nuclear issues, sanctions relief, and regional security-controlling information flow is a way to reduce public pressure and create space for compromise. Any premature leak or misrepresentation can harden domestic positions and limit what negotiators are able to offer at the table.
For Iran, setting clear public conditions-such as the demand that the US avoid “excessive” and “illegal” requests-functions as a pre‑emptive shield against potential criticism at home. If the talks fail, Tehran can argue that it was Washington’s inflexibility that blocked an agreement. If there is progress, Iranian officials can claim that the US was ultimately forced to recognize Iran’s “legitimate rights,” as demanded from the outset.
From the US perspective, although Washington has not publicly detailed its precise expectations from the Islamabad track, it is likely focused on mechanisms to restrain Iran’s nuclear activities, curb regional escalation, and obtain verifiable assurances on maritime security, particularly in sensitive chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz. Iran, by explicitly including war reparations and sanctions relief in the agenda, appears determined to broaden the negotiations beyond narrow technical arrangements.
Pakistan’s role as host is also significant. By providing a neutral venue, Islamabad positions itself as a facilitator at a moment when direct US‑Iran channels are limited. The choice of Pakistan underscores that, even amid intense polarization, regional states are trying to reduce the risk of miscalculation and open at least minimal lines of communication between adversaries.
The reference to war reparations and the complete cessation of what Iran calls “the war against Iran and the region” points to a broader Iranian strategy: to fold into a single bargaining process past grievances, current conflicts, and future security guarantees. This comprehensive approach allows Tehran to link progress on nuclear questions to tangible relief from sanctions and an easing of military pressure in its neighborhood.
At the same time, Tehran’s insistence that it will not forgive “serious crimes” attributed to the US and Israel reveals the ideological and emotional weight attached to these negotiations. They are not only technical talks over uranium enrichment levels or shipping routes; they are intertwined with decades of conflict, assassinations, sabotage incidents, and proxy confrontations across the Middle East.
Against this international backdrop, domestic developments in Turkey formed a contrasting second thread in regional news flow. Authorities launched an anti‑corruption operation targeting the municipality of Yenişehir in the southern city of Mersin. The operation focused on alleged bribery and bid‑rigging in public tenders.
According to information from security sources, detention procedures were ongoing, and arrest warrants had been issued for 30 individuals, including several deputy mayors. The charges center on accusations that municipal officials manipulated procurement processes and accepted illicit payments in connection with public contracts.
The Mersin case highlights how local governance issues and anti‑corruption efforts continue to unfold in parallel with high‑profile diplomatic dramas in the region. While regional capitals negotiate over sanctions, nuclear capabilities, and maritime security, local institutions face scrutiny over transparency, public trust, and the proper use of municipal resources.
For international observers, both tracks-grand diplomacy in Islamabad and anti‑corruption operations at the municipal level-are part of a broader picture of political volatility and institutional stress stretching from the Eastern Mediterranean to South Asia. Negotiations between Iran and the US could have far‑reaching effects on energy markets, security alignments, and economic conditions, which in turn shape the domestic political climate in neighboring countries.
As the Islamabad talks continue behind closed doors, several key questions remain open. Will Washington be prepared, in Tehran’s view, to scale back what Iran describes as maximalist demands? Can Iran offer confidence‑building steps on its nuclear program and regional activities that the US will consider meaningful? And can Pakistan’s mediation help bridge a gap that has persisted through multiple rounds of indirect talks over the past years?
The Iranian spokesperson’s message makes clear that any agreement will require not merely technical compromises, but also a shift in how each side interprets “legitimate rights” and “illegal demands.” Whether the Islamabad round can move the sides closer to that point, or simply add another chapter to a long record of failed attempts, is likely to become evident in the coming days and weeks as official statements either converge toward cautious optimism or harden into mutual recriminations.