Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said the United States is not seeking diplomacy and that Iran will not negotiate under threats.

The disagreement highlights a volatile diplomatic rift between Washington and Tehran, where conflicting narratives regarding the status of peace talks could either lead to a ceasefire or trigger further military escalation.

The statements followed a round of talks held over the weekend in Burgenstock, Switzerland [1, 2]. Ghalibaf said that the outbursts and threats from U.S. President Donald Trump have jeopardized the negotiation process. He said that talks cannot proceed while the U.S. maintains a posture of intimidation.

"We never negotiate under threats," Ghalibaf said [2].

President Trump offered a different account of the current state of affairs. He said the U.S. is in negotiations with Iran right now to end the war [3]. However, this claim of active diplomacy contrasts with other warnings from the U.S. administration regarding military action.

Trump said the U.S. is ready to proceed with further attacks on Tehran if Iran does not agree to a peace deal [4]. This duality of seeking a diplomatic resolution while threatening military strikes has become a central point of contention in the Burgenstock meetings.

Additional tensions have surfaced regarding financial terms. Reports have mentioned a claim that the U.S. would pay $300 billion [5] to Tehran, though this claim has been denied.

Iranian officials maintain that the country will fight and negotiate on its own timeline [2]. Ghalibaf said the U.S. approach lacks a genuine desire for diplomacy, suggesting that the current environment is unsuitable for a lasting agreement.

“"We never negotiate under threats."”

The contradiction between Ghalibaf's dismissal of U.S. diplomacy and Trump's claim of active negotiations suggests a significant gap in the perceived preconditions for peace. By framing the U.S. approach as coercive, Iran is signaling that it will not accept a deal predicated on military pressure, while the U.S. continues to use the threat of force as leverage to secure a favorable agreement.