Iranian Officials to Drop Site: Tehran is Showing “Unbelievable Level of Flexibility" in Talks to Prevent U.S. War
Iran understands it is dealing with an erratic U.S. president, but its negotiators still believe they can thread the needle with Trump.
Drop Site is a reader-funded, independent news outlet. Without your support, we can’t operate. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber or making a 501(c)(3) tax-deductible donation today.
The U.S. and Iran are headed to a new round of talks in Geneva aimed at averting a conflict this week—as the U.S. continues to surge military forces to the region in its largest military buildup since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Although talks are scheduled for Thursday, the prospects for a deal that would halt the U.S. drive to war remain fragile. The U.S. has demanded sweeping concessions, including the cessation of all nuclear enrichment on Iranian soil, the end of Iranian support for regional armed resistance movements, and strict limits on the Iranian ballistic missile program—the only meaningful deterrent that Iran was able to employ during its conflict with Israel last year.
In a post on Truth Social on Monday, President Donald Trump wrote, “I am the one that makes the decision, I would rather have a Deal than not but, if we don’t make a Deal, it will be a very bad day for that Country and, very sadly, its people, because they are great and wonderful, and something like this should never have happened to them.”
An Iranian official told Drop Site that Tehran understands the erratic nature of the Trump administration, but believes the position its diplomats are outlining to U.S. negotiators represents an unprecedented effort by Iran aimed at preventing a regional war. The official said Iran is directly addressing U.S. concerns on the nuclear issue with concrete proposals, and asserting a willingness to expand talks to other issues once a deal to avert imminent conflict has been concluded.
“We have demonstrated an almost unbelievable level of flexibility on the enrichment issue itself,” said the Iranian official who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations. Iranian negotiators, he said, working in coordination with the Supreme National Security Council and empowered by the country’s leadership, “decided to exercise maximum flexibility on the nuclear issue, but only on the strict condition that it would genuinely prevent the outbreak of war.” The council is Iran’s highest authority on national security and defense strategy and is headed by Ali Larijani, a veteran of the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a former speaker of parliament and a trusted advisor to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
On Sunday, Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff asserted in an interview on FOX News, conducted by Trump’s daughter-in-law Lara, that Iran is “probably a week away from having industrial-grade bombmaking material.” Witkoff did not offer any evidence for the claim and it flew in the face of years of U.S. national intelligence estimates. It also dramatically undermined the contentions of Trump administration officials who claimed that the June 2025 U.S. bombing of Iran had resulted in “complete and total obliteration” of its nuclear program. On Monday, referring to Iran’s nuclear development, Trump wrote on Truth Social, “It is a Development no longer, but rather, was blown to smithereens by our Great B-2 Bombers.” The White House did not respond to a request for comment on Witkoff’s claims.
Given “the amount of seapower and naval power” the U.S. has amassed in the region, Witkoff continued, the president is “curious as to why [the Iranians] haven’t—I don’t want to use the word ‘capitulated,’ but why they haven’t capitulated.”
In response, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in a post on Twitter/X, “Curious to know why we do not capitulate? Because we are Iranian.”
The talks between the U.S. and Iran are being mediated by Oman and began on February 6 in Muscat. A second round was held in Geneva on February 17. The U.S. delegation is led by Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.
“As President Trump stated, he would prefer to make a deal with Iran, but if a deal cannot be consummated, ‘it’s going to be a very bad day for Iran,’” a White House official told Drop Site. “Operation Midnight Hammer demonstrated that Iran should make a deal, and the President hopes that ‘this time they will be more reasonable and responsible.’”
Since early January, Iran has laid out what it has characterized as its red lines. Among them: that the nation has a right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes and that its ballistic missiles are a core aspect of its independence and national defense.
The Iranian official said that in order to preempt any “additional pretexts” the U.S. may use to justify launching a war against Iran, the government has indicated in the recent negotiations that it is willing to open talks beyond the nuclear issue “through a clearly defined mechanism if a temporary agreement is reached.” He declined to elaborate.
A second Iranian official who spoke to Drop Site also said that the government was serious about reaching a deal with Trump and saw a new agreement as feasible, but expressed wariness about the nature of U.S. intentions heading into the next round of talks.
“If America’s genuine concern is to prevent us from building a nuclear bomb, the Islamic Republic can address those concerns with diplomacy. We think a win-win agreement is possible, if the other side wants the same,” the senior foreign ministry official said.
“There are signs that America’s objective is not to negotiate in earnest about our nuclear program,” the official added, referring to overt threats by Trump and other officials beginning in January to wage a regime change war. “There are signs that their objective is to see our collapse. If that is the case and they start a war, we are ready to defend ourselves. Our response will be beyond anything they’ve ever seen and will involve the entire region.”
The Iranian officials would not discuss technical specifics of the ongoing negotiations currently scheduled in Geneva or offer any concrete details of what Tehran is willing to offer. Iranian negotiators have also reportedly discussed offering economic incentives designed to appeal to Trump, including cooperation on oil and gas development inside Iran and purchases of civilian airliners.
“I can imagine Iran putting serious concessions on the table, but insofar as any American pledge would be inherently reversible—and in [Iran’s] eyes, utterly unreliable—they likely will want their concessions to be just as reversible,” said Robert Malley, a former Middle East official under both President Barack Obama and Joe Biden who was also a top U.S. negotiator of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, in an interview with Drop Site. “It’s not clear that [a deal with any perceived contingencies] is something the Trump administration would accept.”
Malley said that, at a minimum, Tehran would need to offer a significant suspension of uranium enrichment—either indefinitely or for a defined period—in order to sell a deal to the Trump administration that was superior to Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Despite Biden’s campaign pledge to restore the JCPOA, no such agreement was reached before Trump won back the presidency in 2024.
“If the Trump administration wants an outcome in which it could say we achieved more than Obama or Biden, I think they can do it,” said Malley, who served as Special Envoy to Iran under Biden and sought to restart nuclear talks after Trump canceled the nuclear deal in 2018. “If Iran is prepared to suspend enrichment for a period of years, that is more than certainly Obama achieved or Biden could have achieved.”
But, Malley cautioned, Trump is demanding sweeping concessions from Iran beyond its nuclear program, including on its ballistic missile capabilities and stockpiles. “I do think that there are lines that the [Iranian] system simply won’t cross, either because of matters of dignity or because of matters of their perception of self-defense and self-reliance,” he said. “But the circumstances are different today than they were in 2015 or 2021, undoubtedly.”
And, while Malley believes Iran genuinely wants to prevent a war with the United States and is negotiating toward that end, trust was eroded in Trump’s first administration. “I do think that Iran would accept a war if the alternative were what they consider to be capitulation or if they believe that the first concession they make is just an invitation to the next one,” he said. “We were never able to reassure the Iranians back in 2021 that a deal would survive. I don’t know how the Trump administration is going to give them guarantees. I understand that they want a deal. They’re not complacent about a war. I also think that they are deeply mistrustful that any deal—in the American mind—is an alternative to war as opposed to a step towards more demands and then, if they’re not met, a war.”
Another new dynamic in the current talks has been the role of regional countries—several of which have been advocating to President Trump to hold off on any attack against Iran. One of the Iranian officials who spoke to Drop Site said that in the aftermath of the June 2025 war, during which the U.S. and Israel bombed Iran for 12 days and killed more than 1,000 Iranians, Tehran intensified its targeted campaign of diplomacy in the region, seeking to improve its relationships with Arab governments.
The official said Iran sought to repair relations with some key Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, in order to counter what was, in addition to Israeli influence, becoming an “influential variable in pushing Trump toward war with Iran.” He added, “At the same time, clear warning messages were also delivered to them to discourage any continued covert encouragement of Trump.” Since early January when the U.S. once again began openly threatening Iran, many Arab governments have very publicly stated their opposition to any U.S. attacks and have said they would not allow their territory or airspace to be used for strikes.
Egypt and Iran are reportedly finalizing an agreement to fully restore diplomatic relations for the first time since 1979, and Iranian officials regularly meet with their counterparts in a variety of Arab countries. Despite Iran’s overtures and clear evidence of closer relations with its Arab neighbors, the U.S. has been amassing substantial attack aircraft, air defense systems, and other military hardware in Arab countries. While their territories may not be used to launch an attack, in the event Trump does authorize strikes on Iran, the U.S. would utilize command and control and targeting systems in several Arab nations, as well as satellite and surveillance capabilities. Some of these nations would also be an integral part of countering Iranian retaliatory strikes on U.S. bases, oil infrastructure in the region and, in the case of Jordan, defending Israel from Iranian missiles.
Even if Iran and the U.S. sign a temporary agreement centered on Iran’s nuclear enrichment, the issue of its ballistic missiles will hover over the long-term viability of any deal. The demand that Iran curtail or even fully dismantle its capacity has been advocated most strongly by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, despite protests from regional countries—aiming to avoid a war—that the demand would function as a poison pill for any negotiation. “I would be very surprised if Iran took a step that meant de facto that they’re giving up on what they would consider the means of deterrence through their means of retaliation, the ballistic missile program,” said Malley.
“After all,” added Ali Alfoneh, an Iran analyst, “what guarantee does [Tehran] have that Israel and the United States will not attack Iran again if it disarms?”
The Iranian government has meanwhile begun preparations for surviving a possible U.S. military offensive. In recent weeks, Iranian President Mahmoud Pezeshkian has been delegating powers to provincial governors in order to maintain government continuity in the event of attacks that kill a significant number of senior leaders in Tehran. The Iranian military has also carried out a series of ballistic and anti-ship missile tests in addition to naval exercises in the Strait of Hormuz intended to simulate a possible closure of the vital waterway.
Contrary to hopes that a war with Iran could succeed in quickly toppling the ruling government by killing a number of its key leadership figures, experts on the Iranian political system say that such a campaign is unlikely to replicate the quick success that Trump enjoyed in Venezuela. The elevation of Larijani—a veteran politician and former Revolutionary Guards officer—as a key figure charged with handling the nuclear talks represents just one example in a broader effort by the government to diffuse authority as it prepares for possible succession scenarios amid a war.
“The Islamic Republic is not a personalist dictatorship with Ayatollah Khamenei sitting atop the pyramid of power. Rather, the regime now has a collective leadership composed of the president, the parliamentary speaker, the judiciary chief, one representative of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and one from the regular army,” said Alfoneh, author of the book “Political Succession in the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
“A collective leadership is inherently harder to neutralize than a single individual,” he added, “and the regime is therefore in a better position to survive decapitation.”
**"On Sunday, Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff asserted in an interview on FOX News, conducted by Trump’s daughter Lara, that Iran is “probably a week away from having industrial-grade bombmaking material.” Witkoff did not offer any evidence for the claim and it flew in the face of years of U.S. national intelligence estimates."**
"Probably a week away from having industrial-grade bomb making material" - sure, Stevie W.
And America is probably a week away from being made "great again"...
No war with Iran.
No regime change.
No interventions.
No black ops meddling.
No games of engineered social unrest.
I don't know what the malicious obsession is with Iran from the US. There are more productive ways to reconcile **legitimate** grievances than smashing things to pieces. That is of course, **if** such a desire exists in the first place. I think it's obvious that these "negotiations" are nothing more than a truly low-effort attempt by the US to legitimize yet one more illegitimate war in the middle east. They'll say Iran was unreasonable. I've seen this too many times.
I hope this flexibility is not a form of capitulation. Iran needs to build the bomb and that is the only way they can protect themselves. Only this will stop the meddling and sabotage of Iranian nation.