Iran has indicated readiness to enter a new nuclear agreement with the United States and European powers, provided that U.S. sanctions are lifted and security guarantees are offered to prevent further military action during negotiations. In an interview with Japan’s Kyodo News, Majid Takht-Ravanchi, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister, said Tehran could accept temporary limits on its peaceful nuclear program as part of a “fair, win-win deal,” but stressed that uranium enrichment must be allowed to continue on Iranian soil. He framed the proposal as a confidence-building measure, contingent on reciprocal steps by Washington.
The possible shift in tone comes in the wake of the June U.S.-Israeli bombardment on Iranian soil, which targeted nuclear, military, and civilian infrastructure. According to Iranian sources, 1,065 people—mostly civilians—were killed, including senior military officials and nuclear scientists. The war ended after 12 days, with Iran launching extensive missile and drone attacks on Israel and U.S. military assets in the region.
Norway has emerged as a potential mediator for renewed U.S.-Iran dialogue after earlier Oman-facilitated talks collapsed amid the conflict. Norwegian Deputy Foreign Minister Andreas Kravik visited Tehran last week, meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. While no official confirmation of mediation was made, Norway’s condemnation of Israel’s strikes and its traditionally good relations with Tehran have fueled speculation.
Meanwhile, Iran and the E3—Britain, France, and Germany—met in Istanbul two weeks ago, focusing on the “snapback” mechanism that could reimpose UN sanctions unless a new deal is reached. The Europeans have given Iran until late August to agree to a new monitoring framework for its nuclear program, threatening to trigger the return of Security Council resolutions if no agreement is made. Tehran has dismissed European moral authority to use the snapback tool, citing their failure to condemn Israel’s attacks.
A senior IAEA official is expected to visit Tehran soon for discussions on future cooperation, but Iran has made clear there will be no immediate access to nuclear sites, citing security and safety concerns for inspectors following the recent strikes. In July, Iran’s parliament passed an emergency law making cooperation with the IAEA subject to case-by-case approval by the Supreme National Security Council. Araghchi has stated that any agency requests will be evaluated individually under this framework.
Amid these diplomatic maneuvers, domestic debate over renewed talks with the U.S. has intensified. President Masoud Pezeshkian, speaking on August 9 and again on August 10 (19 Mordad), defended engagement, saying: “Surrender is not in our nature, but who says we should fear talking? If we don’t talk, do we want to fight again, rebuild, and face destruction once more? The government will not take any step without the Leader’s consent, even if it goes against my own opinion.” He stressed that diplomacy must be approached without emotional reactions and that coordination with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is absolute.
These remarks triggered a wave of reactions. Aziz Ghazanfari, deputy political chief of the IRGC, warned that careless statements could harm national security. Brigadier General Ali Fadavi, IRGC deputy commander, emphasized that military readiness is non-negotiable and conflict between “truth and falsehood” is eternal. Conservative MP Hamid Rasaei questioned Pezeshkian’s political competence, accusing him of sending signals of weakness to enemies. Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of Kayhan, suggested the president’s words could be interpreted as equating negotiations with surrender when the U.S. has predetermined the outcome.
Hardline commentator Foad Izadi argued Pezeshkian’s stance might encourage further U.S. or Israeli attacks, prompting reformist analyst Ahmad Zeidabadi to counter that such reasoning is “childish” and misunderstands the nature of war and diplomacy. Former presidential adviser Hesamoddin Ashna criticized Pezeshkian’s “off-the-cuff” style, urging him to speak with more discipline, while Tasnim News Agency accused him of projecting “a weak and desperate image” that could undermine even the negotiations he supports.
The internal split is further highlighted by Saeed Jalili, a leading conservative and former nuclear negotiator, who likened post-war talks with the U.S. to the biblical Golden Calf worship, warning of betrayal. In contrast, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi defended diplomacy, likening Khamenei’s leadership to “Moses parting the sea,” saying the Leader has guided Iran both in negotiations and in defense with “wise and courageous” leadership.
Iran’s political scene remains sharply divided over the possibility of renewed negotiations with Washington. While both sides have signaled openness to indirect talks at various points, key sticking points remain and it is unclear whether any party is fully committed to resolving the conflict at a negotiating table. Meanwhile, Tehran is seeking to strengthen its bargaining position through accelerated defense measures and regional alliances. With European snapback deadlines looming and mediation channels tentatively opening, the coming weeks could prove decisive in shaping the next phase of Iran’s nuclear diplomacy and determine whether the June war will reignite.