Iran’s chief diplomatic spokesman has accused the United States of derailing nuclear negotiations through a pattern of inconsistent and contradictory positions, even as indirect message exchanges continue between Tehran and Washington. In an interview with CNN in the Iranian capital on Sunday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said the primary hurdle in talks with the current US administration is the constant shifting of goals, divergent statements and contradictory remarks from different American officials. “The whole process [is] very cumbersome,” he noted, confirming that Pakistani intermediaries remain the channel for diplomatic messages.

Beyond the procedural frustrations, Baghaei identified core substantive disagreements that have left the two sides far apart. Chief among them is Washington’s refusal, as Tehran sees it, to recognise Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear enrichment under the international non‑proliferation treaty. Iranian media underscored that the spokesman also highlighted the impasse over billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets, which the United States has shown no willingness to release. The situation, Baghaei warned, is “very unstable and very dangerous,” and he vowed that Iran would respond to any military attack — a signal aimed at both domestic and regional audiences.

The Pakistani mediation track, which has long served as a backchannel between the two adversaries, is reportedly exploring creative formulas to break the deadlock, though no details have emerged. The acknowledgment of Pakistani efforts reflects Islamabad’s quiet but persistent role in facilitating dialogue, a function viewed in regional capitals as both delicate and indispensable. Yet the contradictory nature of Washington’s messaging — oscillating between diplomatic overtures and threats of military action — continues to erode trust in Tehran.

From Tehran’s perspective, the public airing of these grievances serves a dual purpose: it mobilises domestic opinion behind a narrative of steadfastness while signalling to international partners that Iran remains open to a negotiated settlement, provided its red lines are respected. Viewed from Washington, the shifting signals may reflect internal policy divisions between branches of government rather than a deliberate strategy, though Iranian officials plainly interpret them as bad faith. Analysts in London note that without a unified American position, the prospects for a breakthrough appear slim, and the current stalemate risks entrenching the cycle of mutual recrimination that has defined US‑Iran relations for decades.