Iran's negotiating team conditions any further diplomacy on the lifting of what Tehran characterises as an illegal maritime siege — as an IRGC naval skirmish with US forces compounds the standoff
Iran has formally declined to commit to a second round of nuclear and diplomatic negotiations with the United States, conditioning any further talks on the prior lifting of what it describes as an illegal American naval blockade of its ports and coastline. The announcement, relayed through Iranian state and semi-state media on Sunday, marks a significant hardening of Tehran's public posture following the collapse of the first negotiating round, which was brokered through Pakistani mediation.
According to Tasnim News Agency, which carries close ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), back-channel message exchanges between Tehran and Washington have continued in recent days via Islamabad as intermediary — a process Tehran frames as a continuation of talks that failed due to what it calls "excessive American demands and ambitions." IRNA, the Islamic Republic's official wire service, flatly denied circulating reports of an imminent second round in Islamabad, attributing them to a US "media game" designed to place blame on Iran for the diplomatic impasse.
Iran's Foreign Ministry Spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei escalated the legal rhetoric surrounding the blockade in a post on social media platform X, invoking international law to condemn the American maritime measure as both a violation of the Pakistani-mediated ceasefire and an act of aggression under the UN Charter. Baqaei cited Article 2(4) of the UN Charter — which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any state — and Article 3(c) of UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974), which explicitly enumerates the blockade of a state's ports or coasts as an act of aggression. He further characterised the measure as a war crime and crime against humanity on grounds that it inflicts collective punishment on the Iranian civilian population.
Naval Incident in the Sea of Oman
The diplomatic standoff was compounded Sunday by a reported military incident in the Sea of Oman. Mehr News Agency, citing what it described as correspondent intelligence, reported that US naval forces opened fire on an Iranian commercial vessel in an apparent attempt to turn it back toward Iranian territorial waters. The IRGC Navy's rapid reaction units were said to have intervened, forcing the American forces to withdraw from the area. The incident, if confirmed by independent sources, would represent a potentially dangerous escalation at sea, with direct implications for freedom of navigation through the broader Gulf region.
Iranian authorities have maintained control over the Strait of Hormuz since the onset of hostilities, and Iranian media reported separately that the country's armed forces had blocked two additional oil tankers from transiting the strait on Sunday. The Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) has stated publicly that Iran will maintain control over the Hormuz Strait "until the war ends," a formulation that signals Tehran's readiness to use maritime leverage as a long-term strategic instrument.
Pakistan at the Centre of a Fragile Diplomatic Architecture
Pakistan's role as a mediating power between Washington and Tehran has become the defining structural feature of the current diplomatic track. The Iranian Foreign Minister spoke by telephone with his Pakistani counterpart on Sunday to discuss the latest regional and international developments, according to Mehr News Agency, underscoring Islamabad's continued engagement on both sides. That Pakistan has maintained this channel despite the deterioration of conditions on the ground suggests a residual institutional commitment to preserving the diplomatic framework, even as both principals trade accusations.
Tehran's framing of the blockade as a "violation of the ceasefire" — a Pakistani-brokered arrangement — is significant: by casting it as a breach of an existing agreement rather than a unilateral American escalation, Iran seeks to place international and Pakistani pressure on Washington to stand down. Whether this legal and rhetorical strategy will translate into a resumption of negotiations remains to be seen.
The Negotiating–Yet–Fighting Posture
Iranian officials have consistently maintained a dual-track posture throughout the current crisis: insisting on Iran's willingness to negotiate while simultaneously signalling military resolve. Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf has stated publicly that Iran is negotiating but is simultaneously ready for war. President Masoud Pezeshkian, addressing the nation on Sunday, reiterated that Iran is not seeking war, characterising its military actions as self-defence — standard Islamic Republic framing that maps legal justification onto strategic messaging.
The IRGC, for its part, has publicly claimed to be rapidly replenishing its missile and drone stockpiles during the truce period, and a senior officer boasted that Iran's air defence forces had shot down an F-35 — a claim that, while unverified and almost certainly contested, is designed for domestic and regional audiences rather than factual accuracy.
The structural logic of the current impasse is stark: Iran insists on the removal of the blockade as a precondition for talks; the United States appears unwilling to lift it without extracting diplomatic concessions; Pakistan lacks the coercive leverage to force either side to move. Unless one party blinks, the risk of the current low-level military friction escalating into a broader confrontation remains elevated.