Tehran and Washington exchange tough rhetoric amid ongoing negotiations over nuclear deal framework and regional security
TEHRAN / WASHINGTON — A senior commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has accused Iran’s adversaries of making a “strategic miscalculation” about the country’s military and political strength, as tensions continue alongside delicate negotiations with the United States over a potential nuclear agreement.
IRGC claims “strategic failure” of enemies
IRGC Deputy for Political Affairs Yadollah Javani said Iran’s opponents had wrongly believed they could achieve a rapid victory by imposing war or pressure on the Islamic Republic.
Speaking to Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency, Javani said the objectives of Iran’s adversaries had included dismantling the country’s nuclear capabilities, weakening its missile defence systems and ultimately seeking regime change.
He claimed those goals had failed, arguing that regional power dynamics had now shifted in Iran’s favour.
Javani further said the United States now faced a choice between recognising what he described as Iran’s rights or continuing confrontation.
Iran’s parliament signals distrust in negotiations
Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said Tehran would not accept any agreement with Washington unless Iran’s conditions and “rights of the people” were guaranteed.
“There is no trust in the enemy’s words and promises,” he said, according to Iranian state media, adding that Iran would only commit after seeing “tangible results”.
Separately, Ebrahim Rezaei, head of parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, said Iran preferred diplomacy but maintained clear red lines.
He argued that the United States was negotiating from a weaker position and said pressure tactics, including any naval blockade, would ultimately fail or be resolved through negotiations or military means.
US-Iran nuclear negotiations remain uncertain
The political exchanges come as US President Donald Trump continues to push for a nuclear agreement with Iran, while insisting that Tehran must permanently abandon any ambition to develop nuclear weapons.
Trump said he had received assurances from Iran regarding its nuclear programme, but reports suggest significant disagreements remain over the structure and conditions of any deal.
According to US media reports, including Axios and The New York Times, Washington has revised its proposed framework, introducing stricter terms related to nuclear material oversight and verification.
Trump has also reportedly requested further amendments to provisions concerning enriched uranium and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route.
Strait of Hormuz remains central point of dispute
The Strait of Hormuz — through which around one-fifth of global oil supplies pass — remains a key strategic focus in negotiations and regional tensions.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy claimed that 25 vessels recently passed through the waterway under its security coordination, stating that Iran maintains operational oversight of maritime traffic in the region.
The IRGC also said foreign vessels are required to obtain permission before transit, underscoring Tehran’s assertion of control over shipping movements in the strategic corridor.
Military rhetoric continues on both sides
Iranian armed forces officials warned that any aggression against Iranian territory would be met with a “stronger response than ever before”, highlighting continued military preparedness.
Meanwhile, US officials have indicated that while progress has been made toward a possible agreement, President Trump remains willing to pursue alternative options if negotiations fail.
A senior US official cited by Axios said Iran’s response to revised proposals is expected within days, although both sides continue to dispute key details of the draft framework.
Diplomatic breakthrough remains uncertain
Despite ongoing discussions, major gaps remain between Washington and Tehran over nuclear guarantees, sanctions relief, frozen assets and regional security arrangements involving Lebanon and the broader Middle East.
While both sides have signalled interest in avoiding full-scale escalation, current rhetoric suggests that negotiations remain fragile and subject to rapid change.
