The growing calls for secrecy may reflect an effort to control the narrative as divisions emerge at home over how far Iran should go in any negotiations.
Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani, a member of parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, told reporters on Monday that “not everything about the negotiations needs to be stated openly.”
He compared diplomacy to marriage negotiations, where each side conceals parts of its background until after an agreement is reached, insisting that secrecy does not contradict transparency with the public.
Iran used similar tactics at least twice in recent history: during the release of American hostages in January 1981 after 444 days in captivity, and in August 1988 when it accepted the ceasefire that ended the eight-year war with Iraq.
On Tuesday, ultraconservative lawmaker Amir Hossein Sabeti, a prominent anti-US figure, called for “nuclear ambiguity,” arguing that the United States and Israel would have used nuclear weapons against Iran had they known the exact location of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles.
His remarks coincided with similar statements from other lawmakers urging officials not to speak publicly about Iran’s positions on the nuclear issue or the Strait of Hormuz—two of the central obstacles in diplomatic efforts to break the deadlock in Iran-US relations.
US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that Tehran had told Washington it wanted the Strait of Hormuz reopened “as soon as possible,” suggesting efforts to revive talks may include discussions over shipping through the strategic waterway.
In a Truth Social post, Trump said Iran was in a “state of collapse” and was trying to resolve “their leadership situation,” though Tehran has not publicly commented on the claim.
In Tehran, conflicting public statements have underscored divisions within the political establishment over the talks.
Ultraconservative MP Ali Khezrian told state broadcaster that all doors of negotiation with the United States were shut down” adding that no messages were being exchanged through intermediaries.
Yet other lawmakers have acknowledged that talks are continuing, including Ardestani, who said, “we cannot stop negotiating … we have won the war, and we need to establish our victory in negotiations.”
Khezrian and Ardestani both said hardline cleric and lawmaker Mahmoud Nabavian—who accompanied the Iranian delegation to Islamabad during the first round of talks—was there only to brief parliament afterward.
Nabavian later said it had been “a mistake” to include the nuclear issue in the discussions.
In a report published on April 27, Khabar Online cited conservative commentator Mohammad Mohajeri criticizing lawmakers and some officials for making “uncalculated” statements on foreign-policy matters, including Iran’s position on the Strait of Hormuz.
According to the report, remarks about imposing taxes on shipping, proposing a “new legal regime” for the waterway, or using the term “closure of the strait” instead of “control” have raised concerns they could harm Iran’s national interests and create legal complications.
Khabar Online also warned lawmakers not to undermine the authority of the Supreme National Security Council, which coordinates national-security and foreign-policy positions.
