Middle East: Iran says no

By Richard North - January 29, 2026

It’s a while since I wrote about the situation in Iran, with it slipping down the news agenda in the absence of any military intervention by Trump or the Israelis.

That may all be changing as the US president delivers what amounts to an ultimatum, timed to coincide with the arrival of the Abraham Lincoln carrier group in the region.

The New York Times carries a detailed report which has Trump sharply intensifying his threats against Iran, suggesting that if it did not agree to a set of demands the administration had made of the country’s leaders, he could soon mount an attack “with speed and violence”.

Not uncommonly with the way the Trump administration works, there are no specifics about the deal being demanded, with the president saying only that a “massive Armada” was heading toward Iran and that the country should make a deal.

However, US and European officials say that in talks, they have put three demands in front of the Iranians: a permanent end to all enrichment of uranium, limits on the range and number of their ballistic missiles, and an end to all support for proxy groups in the Middle East, including Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis operating in Yemen.

Notably absent from those demands – and from Trump’s post on Truth Social on Wednesday morning – was any reference to protecting the protesters who took to the streets in Iran in December, despite his promise in past social media posts that he would come to their aid.

Trump’s megaphone diplomacy, in any event, is going to be fraught. As the NYT explains, the Iranian system is fragile. Two weeks ago, when the US appeared to be on the brink of military action over the threatened execution of 800 protesters, the country’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, a longtime Iranian diplomat and politician, had to seek permission to talk with Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff.

In the end, he had to make the commitment through a third party that Iran was not planning imminent executions, because he was prohibited from formal, direct communications with the United States.

Araghchi’s authority is said to be “heavily constrained”, a feature of the Iranian system where there is constant jockeying between the Supreme Leader’s office, the Revolutionary Guard and the office of the president, Masoud Pezeshkian, for whom Araghchi works. However, key issues of foreign policy are decided by the 86-year-old supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

As of yesterday, there seem to have been no direct talks, with Araghchi telling reporters in Tehran that his government had not requested a meeting with the United States and that he and Mr. Witkoff had not been in contact in recent days.

Iran, Araghchi said, had not made a decision about negotiations, although various countries were trying in good faith to mediate between Tehran and Washington.

“Our position is that diplomacy cannot be effective and have results through military threats”, the Iranian foreign minister said. “If they want negotiations to take place, they definitely have to set aside threats, excessive demands and making unrealistic demands”. Araghchi added: “A war between Iran and the United States would be destabilising to the entire region, and countries in the Middle East were against it”.

In something of a contrast to Trump’s bombast, though, secretary of state Marco Rubio told the Senate that the build up around Iran was “largely defensive”, positioned because tens of thousands of American troops in the region were “within the reach of Iranian one-way drones and ballistic missiles”.

Stressing that it was “wise and prudent” to increase the US presence, he nevertheless warned that American force could be used “pre-emptively”, although Rubio did add: “I hope it doesn’t come to that”.

This is thus the “take” offered by the NYT but Aljazeera – which is, perhaps, closer to the action – puts it differently. It runs its report under the heading: “Iran rejects Trump’s threats, says ready to respond to any US attack”.

It cites Araghchi’s social media output, where he writes: “Our brave Armed Forces are prepared—with their fingers on the trigger – to immediately and powerfully respond to ANY aggression against our beloved land, air, and sea” (Caps in original).

Araghchi adds that Iran had learned “valuable lessons” from Israel’s days-long military assault on the country in June of last year, which also saw the Trump administration launch its own attacks on Iranian nuclear sites. “The valuable lessons learned from the 12-Day War have enabled us to respond even more strongly, rapidly, and profoundly”, he said.

The bellicosity of the response is confirmed by The Times in London, reporting that “Iran has ‘fingers on the trigger’”, citing Araghchi as well as Ali Shamkhani, a senior adviser to Ayatollah Khamenei.

This figure, also writing on social media, says that military action from the US would be “considered the start of war”, stating that “The response will be immediate, [all out] and unprecedented”, and that it would target Israel and “all supporters of the aggressors”.

For where we go next, social media perhaps offers the best analysis which is rather appropriate since the war of words is at the moment largely being fought out there.

The view here is that the American president is floating what appears to be a diplomatic offer to Iran, but in reality it is a strategic trap the Ayatollah cannot accept.

The terms, it suggests are absolute. Iran would be required to dismantle its military nuclear program entirely, surrender all enriched uranium, and permanently abandon enrichment. Ballistic missile production would be sharply curtailed, with ranges capped to prevent regional and long-range strike capability that reaches Israel. Most critically, Tehran would be forced to end funding, arming, and direction of its proxy network, including Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis.

Accepting these terms would not simply constrain Iran. It would constitute total strategic defeat. The Islamic Republic’s power does not rest on conventional strength. It rests on three pillars: nuclear leverage, missile deterrence, and the export of the Islamic Revolution through proxy warfare.

Trump’s deal strips all three at once. For Khamenei to agree would be to renounce the regime’s founding ideology and dismantle the very mechanisms that keep it in power.

That is why the analysis concludes that the proposal “is not a serious pathway to agreement”. Rather, it is a forcing function. Khamenei cannot accept it and survive politically or ideologically. A public rejection, however, achieves the opposite objective for Washington. It clarifies intent, collapses diplomatic ambiguity, and establishes that Iran has chosen confrontation over capitulation.

This, therefore, is not diplomacy designed to be signed. It is diplomacy designed to be refused, laying the groundwork for what comes next. And there are few prizes for guessing that that might be.

Given that we are on the road to war, it seems almost certain that Israel will join in, not least because Tehran is threatening that any US action would precipitate an attack on the heart of Tel Aviv.

Such is the peril, though, that Israel is talking about its own pre-emptive strike, prior to any US intervention. This could drag Trump into the war, whether he likes it or not, especially if Iran retaliates by attacking US regional assets.

Such is the reality of the threat of war that virtually every national newspaper carries reports on their front pages, driving Minneapolis off the lead for the first time in days. Peace is draining away by the hour.