Tehran media outlets controlled by hardliners warned the government on Thursday not to place hope in the outcome of renewed talks with the United States, set to resume in Rome on Saturday.
The commentaries follow five days of speculation over the venue for the second round of talks, along with a considerable degree of public negotiations in which both sides voiced at times contradictory positions.
Kayhan, a daily overseen by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s office, warned that portraying negotiations as the solution to Iran’s economic problems is both misleading and dangerous. This view aligns with Khamenei’s longstanding position since 2018, when President Donald Trump withdrew from the JCPOA nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions. At the time, Khamenei rejected negotiations with Trump and insisted that Iran could endure the pressure without making concessions.
“A tainted and mission-driven current inside the country promotes the idea that 100 percent of our economic troubles stem from sanctions, and that negotiations are the only way to remove them,” the paper wrote.
“This viewpoint was already tested during the JCPOA and yielded nothing but ‘sheer loss’.”
Kayhan did not reject talks outright but insisted they should remain limited.
“We must not abandon negotiations altogether,” the editorial continued. “But we must not put all our eggs in that basket either. At most, 30 percent of our economic problems are due to sanctions, and negotiations should be treated as just one of several tools—not the only one.”
Calling for a wartime posture across government institutions, Kayhan urged officials to invest in domestic capabilities.
“When the enemy, led by the US, threatened us with gasoline sanctions, we could have negotiated,” the paper wrote. “But what proved durable and reliable was relying on domestic capabilities… In the end, the gasoline sanctions were rendered ineffective through trust in revolutionary youth and round-the-clock efforts.”
Javan, a publication linked to the Revolutionary Guard, echoed the skepticism, warning against polarizing discourse.
“Extreme optimism or pessimism about talks risks fueling a false political dichotomy in foreign policy,” the paper wrote.
“A realistic approach strengthens the negotiating team’s resolve, avoids sending weak signals to the opponent, and builds the dignity and prudence necessary for successful diplomacy,” Javan concluded.
Iran and the US held the first round of nuclear talks in Muscat last Saturday, with both sides calling the exchange constructive. But remarks by the US representative—who initially said Iran could retain limited enrichment but later demanded a complete halt to nuclear activity—have heightened tensions.
Norman Roule, a veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency for over 30 years who once oversaw its Iran desk, said Tehran's veteran negotiators could drag out the talks to their advantage while enriching uranium toward levels needed to build a bomb.
“Every day talks drag on, Iran moves closer to the threshold,” he said. “And if it calculates that it gains more from staying on the edge of weaponization than actually building a bomb, it will continue to play this game.”
Tehran has proven adept, Roule said, at “negotiating the negotiation”, or what he described as using drawn-out diplomacy to defuse military threats and reduce sanctions while continuing nuclear development.
As the United States prepares to resume nuclear talks with Iran this weekend, Iran’s leadership would appear to be on the backfoot amid uncertainty over its political succession, economic malaise, regional setbacks and rising international suspicion of its nuclear ambitions.
Iran has historically used negotiations as a pressure valve, Roule said, entering talks only when the threat of military confrontation peaks, with previous talks in 2003, 2012, and 2015 coinciding with an escalated US military presence or regional turmoil.
But this time is different, he argued.
“This regime is weaker, more isolated, and increasingly unpopular. If Iran keeps using its nuclear program as a shield to avoid pressure on its oppression, terrorism, and hostage-taking, the international community must call its bluff.”
According to Roule, the Trump administration is entering the talks with a clear objective: a permanent end to Iran’s capacity to build a nuclear weapon, without repeating the perceived flaws of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
“The 2015 agreement placed temporary and reversible limits on Iran’s nuclear program but gave Tehran permanent sanctions relief,” Roule said. “The result was that Iran used that economic relief to finance terrorism and militias across the region.”
Now, Washington may seek to allow Iran a more limited civilian nuclear capability while barring any path to weaponization and denying access to funds that could revitalize Iran’s destabilizing regional network.
Historic Strain
The talks with Trump are proceeding as Tehran is at is weakest strategic moment since emerging from the punishing Iran-Iraq War in 1988, Roule argued.
Politically, the sudden death of President Ebrahim Raisi in a 2024 helicopter crash removed the only viable successor to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei who shared the veteran leader's ideological alignment and political credentials.
Presidential elections last year saw historically low turnout, signaling popular resignation, and the recent ouster of the Vice President and the Finance Minister pointed to factional infighting.
On the economic front, inflation and the proportion of Iranians living below the poverty line both stand at around 30% while blackouts routinely plunge residents and businesses into the dark.
“This is an economic catastrophe,” he said. “Iran's people are paying the price for decades of mismanagement and isolation.”
Militarily, an Oct. 26 Israeli attack likely knocked out much of Iran's air defenses, capping months of harsh Israeli blows on Tehran's allies Hamas and Hezbollah.
“The ring of fire Iran built around Israel is now broken,” Roule said. “The Quds Force remains, but it is bruised and scattered,” he added, referring to the elite paramilitary force that oversees Tehran's foreign operations.
Moment of reckoning
While Roule emphasized his support for a diplomatic solution, he acknowledged that Israel in particular is closely studying plans for a potential attack
“If Israel delivers a significant strike, it won’t eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability permanently,” he said, “but it could raise the costs so high that Tehran would hesitate to rebuild.”
Still, there was some possibility that Tehran could choose a fundamentally different posture toward the United States.
“This could be the moment the Supreme Leader chooses normalization over confrontation,” Roule said. “The Iranian people — brilliant, resilient — deserve a future that isn’t shaped by threats, militias and sanctions.”