Iran’s parliamentary speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf signaled that talks with the United States have yet to bridge major divisions, saying that despite some progress, “significant gaps” remain between the two sides. His remarks, delivered before a new round of talks in Islamabad, were coupled with a renewed warning that Tehran will keep the Strait of Hormuz closed if the U.S. naval blockade continues—underscoring how negotiations are unfolding alongside escalating pressure on one of the world’s most critical shipping lanes.
Speaking to the Islamic Republic’s television on April 18, 2026, Ghalibaf said, “There are still disagreements on several issues; they have views on the nuclear issue and the Strait of Hormuz, but we are standing by our positions. Of course, the purpose of negotiations is for both sides to reach an understanding, but we have our principles.”
”...The purpose of negotiations is for both sides to reach an understanding, but we have our principles.”
The interview took place after two days of intense criticisms by Iran’s hardliners, who accused the negotiating team of treason for allegedly agreeing to some U.S. demands. Speculations went viral about a rift between the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Ghalibaf, or even within the military forces that reportedly are calling the shots after the death of former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
However, the reaction of the pro-Revolutionary Guard Tasnim on April 19 showed that at least a dominant faction regards Ghalibaf’s comments as satisfactory. “A significant part of the recent concerns stemmed from comparisons between the latest negotiations and bitter past experiences,” Tasnim wrote, and added “Mr. Ghalibaf explicitly said that negotiation is a method of struggle—and this line should be seen as the central theme of all analyses.”
Tasnim also sought to explain why Ghalibaf had taken so long to publicly outline the course and substance of the negotiations. The outlet said the delay was due to security considerations for senior officials, pointing to the sensitivity of their movements and the need to keep their whereabouts confidential.
Whether for domestic audiences or for continuing the Islamic Republic’s traditional rhetoric, Ghalibaf still used the word “enemy” while speaking about the United States. He claimed that during the Washington–Tehran negotiations in Islamabad, Iran “firmly confronted” U.S. efforts to conduct mine-clearing operations in the Strait of Hormuz, adding that “we came close to confrontation, but the enemy backed down.” In another instance, Ghalibaf said, “We have no trust in the enemy, and even at this moment, as we sit here, it may start a war; in the field, the armed forces are fully prepared.”
It remains unclear whether the differences in tone among senior figures in Tehran reflect a genuine divide or a familiar “good cop/bad cop” tactic.
Another point Tasnim emphasized in support of Ghalibaf concerned his own role and persona, portraying him as carrying a substantial share of both the military and diplomatic burden at the same time. The outlet claimed that U.S. media reports have highlighted the toughness and resolve of the Iranian team under his leadership, noting that his personal style left a strong impression on the American side. In Tasnim’s framing, this reflects the same spirit evident in his remarks —one that underscores his willingness to take on a demanding role while maintaining firm command over its execution.
Tasnim also praised Ghalibaf for allegedly warning the U.S. negotiators to pull back their mine sweepers “in fifteen minutes” from the Strait of Hormuz, a claim not supported by other sources. The outlet, regularly reflecting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ views, also praised the parliamentary speaker for this comment: “I am ready to give both my life and my reputation; we are prepared both to shed blood and to endure hardship.”
Tasnim, however, was silent about a notable part of Ghalibaf’s interview—his acknowledgment of U.S. power, which is the opposite of the usual comments by regime officials. Ghalibaf said, “They have money, weapons, and resources,” adding, “No, we did not destroy them.”
It remains unclear whether the differences in tone among senior figures in Tehran reflect a genuine divide or a familiar “good cop/bad cop” tactic the system has deployed in the past. Early on April 19, President Donald Trump said Vice President JD Vance would not travel to Islamabad for the second round of talks, citing security services’ inability to prepare on short notice. How much this shift will affect the trajectory of the negotiations remains an open question.
