Trump said Monday he had postponed an attack planned for Tuesday, before warning the United States remained ready to hit Iran hard.
Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, wrote on X that “the United States says it has temporarily halted an attack on Iran to give diplomacy a chance, while simultaneously speaking of readiness for a large-scale strike at any moment. This means calling a threat an opportunity for peace.”
He added that the Islamic Republic was prepared to confront “any military aggression” and that “surrender has no meaning” for Iran.
Mohsen Rezaei, an adviser to Iran’s supreme leader and former commander of the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), accused Trump of setting and then canceling military deadlines in an attempt to force Iran into submission. He warned that Iran’s armed forces would “force America into retreat and surrender.”
Gharibabadi later told members of parliament that Iran’s latest proposal to Washington included demands such as recognition of Iran’s right to uranium enrichment, lifting the US naval blockade, releasing frozen Iranian assets and ending sanctions. He did not provide details about Washington’s response.
Iranian digital outlet Avash Media cited “a source close to the negotiating team” as claiming that Washington had accepted some Iranian conditions, including ending regional conflicts and establishing a reconstruction fund.
On Tuesday, Vice President JD Vance said Washington and Tehran had made “a lot of progress” in talks and that neither side wanted to see a return to war.
Jalal Sadatian, a regional affairs analyst, told the website Fararu that the comments should be viewed “within the framework of the current Iran-US relationship, which is in a phase marked by political attrition and pressure tactics.”
“There is a perception in Tehran that the United States, for now, is using military threats more for political leverage than because it is truly ready for war,” he said.
“Tehran’s calculation is that if it makes major concessions now under maximum pressure, this model could later expand to issues such as missile capabilities and regional influence,” Sadatian added. “Therefore, Iran’s current policy is a combination of restraint, maintaining readiness and continuing protracted negotiations.”
Reformist journalist Ahmad Zeidabadi questioned Trump’s credibility, writing that if the US president’s account was accurate, then “one must seriously doubt the minimum level of rational calculation in him.”
“Does Trump not know what historic catastrophe restarting the war would bring to the entire Persian Gulf region?” Zeidabadi asked. “Was he planning to resume war without consulting allied leaders?”
Still, several analysts and conservative media outlets warned that the possibility of military escalation remains high.
The conservative newspaper Khorasan, which is close to parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, argued that Washington may seek to “unlock negotiations through a limited but effective strike.”
Ehsan Movahedian, a professor of international relations at Allameh Tabataba’i University, told Fararu that “the probability of war in the coming days is very high,” adding that even if conflict does not erupt next week, “that does not mean the danger has disappeared.”
Some Iranian political and media figures argued that the postponement may have had little to do with regional interventions and more to do with operational difficulties.
Ali Gholhaki, a commentator close to Ghalibaf, wrote that “the reason for delaying the attack on Iran appears to be something other than requests from Arab leaders; the United States and Israel are still not certain they can strike their key targets.”
Journalist Davoud Modarresian suggested Pakistani Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi’s extended visit to Iran could be linked to intelligence-gathering efforts.
“Under the pretext of sending messages, they may be trying to track and identify the locations of leaders and commanders,” he wrote.
