Skip to content
Iran Conflict 2026
18APR

Mokhber: Iran will not negotiate with US

3 min read
14:57UTC

Acting President Mokhber becomes the second senior Iranian official to publicly reject negotiations with Washington, closing both the executive and security establishments to direct diplomacy as the Omani backchannel produces nothing.

ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

Supreme Leader Khamenei has not spoken on negotiations — and in Iran's political system, only his authorisation can open a substantive channel; the public rejections by a subordinate acting president and a security official do not constitute a final Iranian position.

Acting President Mohammad Mokhber told ILNA news agency that Iran has "no intention" of negotiating with the United States. He is the second senior Iranian official — after national security chief Ali Larijani, who stated on 3 March that "we will not negotiate with the United States" — to publicly reject the premise of bilateral talks since President Trump claimed in The Atlantic that he had agreed to speak with Iran's new leadership .

The two rejections now span Iran's institutional architecture. Larijani's statement represented the security establishment — the IRGC-aligned apparatus that controls military operations and has historically held veto power over any diplomatic engagement with Washington. Mokhber's statement represents the executive branch, the civilian-facing arm of government that would normally conduct foreign policy. Together, they close the two channels through which any US-Iran negotiation would have to pass. The Assembly of Experts, the third pillar of post-succession governance, confirmed Mojtaba Khamenei as Supreme Leader under IRGC pressure — an appointment that further consolidates the security establishment's dominance over the political system. No institutional actor in Tehran now has both the authority and the stated willingness to engage Washington directly.

The diplomatic record of the past five days sharpens both rejections. Trump told reporters on 1 March that Iranian officials "want to talk" ; the same day, Larijani said they would not. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told his Omani counterpart on Wednesday that Tehran was "open to serious de-escalation efforts" — preserving a narrow distinction between mediated de-escalation (left open) and direct bilateral talks with Washington (rejected). By Thursday, Araghchi's register had hardened; he stated publicly that Trump had "betrayed diplomacy and the Americans who elected him" . The window between "open to serious efforts" and "betrayed diplomacy" closed in under 48 hours.

The Omani backchannel remains the only active diplomatic thread, and it has produced no movement. Oman's foreign minister Badr Albusaidi spoke with Araghchi on Wednesday , reaffirming the Sultanate's call for a Ceasefire, but Mediation requires both parties to accept a framework — and CENTCOM's directive to dismantle Iran's "security apparatus" has redefined the American war aim to encompass the very institutions that Mokhber and Larijani represent. Iranian officials are being asked to negotiate with a government whose stated operational objective is their removal. The structural incentive to engage has inverted: the broader Washington's war aims become, the less any Iranian interlocutor stands to gain from talking.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Iran's acting president publicly said Iran will not talk to the US. But in Iran's political system, the president — elected or acting — does not hold final authority on something this consequential. That authority rests with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has not publicly commented on whether Iran would negotiate. In Iranian political practice, senior officials rejecting talks publicly whilst Khamenei stays silent typically means the door is not definitively closed — it means officials are protecting themselves domestically from appearing to negotiate under military pressure, whilst the Supreme Leader preserves his options through back channels.

Deep Analysis
Synthesis

The accumulation of executive and security-sector rejections without a Supreme Leader statement creates a plausible negotiating architecture in which Iranian officials establish maximalist public positions whilst Khamenei retains exclusive authority to authorise progress through the Omani channel without any official appearing to have capitulated under fire. This is not ambiguity — it is the Islamic Republic's documented standard operating procedure for high-stakes diplomacy under duress.

Root Causes

Negotiating under active bombardment is domestically untenable for any Iranian official regardless of private intent — agreeing to talks whilst being bombed signals that military pressure produces concessions, permanently damaging Iran's deterrence posture for all future crises and inviting further coercion. Public rejection is structurally required by the logic of the Islamic Republic's deterrence maintenance, not merely by this government's preferences.

Escalation

The dual public rejection creates a diplomatic trap that may be deliberate: if the US treats Mokhber's and Larijani's statements as definitive and halts de-escalation outreach, it removes the conditions under which Khamenei could authorise the Omani channel to produce results — foreclosing US diplomatic engagement whilst preserving Iran's own optionality to negotiate on more favourable terms later.

What could happen next?
  • Meaning

    Khamenei's silence on negotiations — not Mokhber's or Larijani's statements — is the authoritative signal; until the Supreme Leader speaks, dual public rejections by subordinate officials do not constitute a final Iranian position.

    Immediate · Assessed
  • Risk

    If the US treats the executive and security-sector rejections as definitive and terminates de-escalation outreach through Oman, it removes the conditions under which Khamenei could authorise back-channel progress without appearing to respond to US military pressure.

    Short term · Assessed
  • Consequence

    The Omani channel's continued operation despite public rejections by both executive and security branches indicates Tehran is maintaining a diplomatic holding pattern — but without substantive movement, the channel's utility and Muscat's credibility as mediator degrade over time.

    Short term · Suggested
  • Precedent

    The JCPOA precedent demonstrates Iran can move from sustained public maximalism to a signed agreement within a single negotiating cycle — but only when the Supreme Leader determines that military and diplomatic conditions align sufficiently to justify engagement.

    Medium term · Assessed
First Reported In

Update #20 · Hormuz sealed; Senate war powers bill fails

CNN· 5 Mar 2026
Read original
Causes and effects
This Event
Mokhber: Iran will not negotiate with US
With both the security establishment (Larijani) and the executive branch (Mokhber) publicly rejecting negotiations, Iran has closed the two institutional channels through which any bilateral dialogue with Washington would pass. The only remaining diplomatic thread — Oman's mediation effort — has produced no movement, and CENTCOM's expanded war aim of dismantling Iran's security apparatus removes the structural incentive for any Iranian official to engage.
Different Perspectives
Global South governments (Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa)
Global South governments (Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa)
Neutrality was possible when the targets were military. 148 dead schoolgirls made it impossible — no government can explain that away to its own citizens.
Trump administration
Trump administration
Oscillating between claiming diplomatic progress and threatening escalation, while deploying additional ground forces to the Gulf.
Israeli security establishment
Israeli security establishment
Fears a rapid, vague US-Iran agreement that freezes military operations before the IDF achieves what it considers full strategic objectives. A senior military official assessed the campaign is 'halfway there' and needs several more weeks.
Iraqi government
Iraqi government
Iraq's force majeure is the position of a non-belligerent whose entire petroleum economy has been paralysed by a war between others — storage full, exports blocked, production being cut with no timeline for resumption.
Russia — Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia
Russia — Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia
Moscow calibrated its position between Gulf states and Iran: abstaining on Resolution 2817 rather than vetoing it, signalling it would not block protection for Gulf states, while refusing to endorse a text that ignores the US-Israeli campaign it regards as the conflict's proximate cause. Russia proposed its own ceasefire text — which failed 4-2-9 — allowing Moscow to claim the peacemaker role while providing Iran with satellite targeting intelligence, a duality consistent with its approach in Syria.
France — President Macron
France — President Macron
France absorbed its first combat death in a conflict it has publicly declined to join. The killing of Chief Warrant Officer Frion in Erbil forces Macron to choose between escalating involvement and accepting casualties from the margins.