Pezeshkian Blames Washington for Iran Deal Collapse—Then Calls for Talks
Iranian President Massoud Pezeshkian blamed Washington on Saturday for wrecking negotiations over an interim deal, but he also urged both sides back to the table. His appeal arrived less than a day after Donald Trump threatened another U.S. military operation against Iran, exposing the contradiction at the center of the crisis: diplomacy remains possible, yet Washington keeps pairing talks with threats of renewed attack.
Pezeshkian made the remarks on Iranian state television on October 24. Reuters reported that he accused the United States of disrupting negotiations before adding: “I still think we should go and conclude it.” The statement did not announce a new round of talks or disclose fresh terms. It did something politically significant nonetheless. Iran’s president publicly kept the door open while assigning responsibility for the breakdown to the power threatening to bomb his country again.
The June interim agreement was supposed to create a 60-day ceasefire and a path toward a permanent settlement. Associated Press reporting shows that it also linked the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of the U.S. blockade on Iranian ports, temporary oil-sanctions waivers and negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program. The pact collapsed within weeks amid renewed military action and disputes over the strait.
Washington negotiates with a weapon on the table
Trump told a Florida rally on Friday that the United States might launch “another little Epic Fury,” using the military’s name for its war against Iran. He offered no operational details. Earlier, he had said Washington would not attack before the November 3 midterm elections and described talks with Tehran as productive.
Those positions do not form a peace strategy. They form coercive diplomacy under a countdown. The United States says it wants negotiations while preserving the option to resume a war that U.S. and Israeli forces began on February 28. Iran, meanwhile, has prepared wider retaliation if attacks restart, including threats against Gulf infrastructure and undersea communications cables.
The consequences already extend far beyond military targets. The war has killed thousands, displaced millions and driven up oil and gas prices. Commercial shipping through Hormuz remains dangerous and expensive. AP reported that some tanker operators now charge $1 million a day or more to cross under U.S. military protection, while overall traffic remains below prewar levels.
That cost travels directly into food, transport, electricity and public budgets. Workers in countries that import fuel pay for the confrontation through higher prices and austerity pressures, while oil companies, insurers and military contractors turn instability into revenue.
Regional governments warn against another attack
The pressure for de-escalation is no longer coming from Tehran alone. After talks in Istanbul on Friday, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said a renewed assault on Iran would expand the regional war and that military intervention offered no solution. Ministers from Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Britain and Italy joined the meeting. France’s foreign minister warned that another escalation would produce only losers and higher oil prices.
Their concern reflects material danger, not diplomatic etiquette. Iran has struck Israel and Gulf states hosting U.S. bases. Houthi attacks have hit Saudi infrastructure. Ships, cables, ports and energy installations have become part of the battlefield. Every threat to resume bombing increases the chance that the next round will spread across borders and pull civilian systems deeper into the war.
Pezeshkian’s call does not erase Iran’s own attacks or guarantee that a new agreement will hold. Nor should Washington treat it as capitulation. It is an opening that should be tested through a ceasefire, the lifting of collective economic punishment and verifiable negotiations—not another campaign rally threat.
The choice is now stark. The United States can return to talks without a bomber’s ultimatum, and Iran can reject retaliation against civilian infrastructure. Or both sides can keep turning Hormuz, Gulf cities and millions of working people into leverage. Pezeshkian has said the deal should still be concluded. Washington should answer at the negotiating table.
Comments