jordan pulse -

​AMMAN
​Informed diplomatic sources familiar with the mediation efforts between Tehran and Washington revealed that the Secretary-General of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Mohsen Rezaei, rejected a Qatari proposal to establish a direct communication channel between American diplomats and an Iranian delegation that recently visited Doha. The move reflects ongoing divergences within decision-making circles in Tehran regarding the scope of openness toward the United States, despite intensified regional endeavors to reach a settlement ending the war.
​Sources told "Erem News" that Doha sought to arrange what it described as a "close-contact" channel between the Iranian delegation and American diplomats whose presence in the Qatari capital coincided with the latest talks. The effort aimed to move beyond relying solely on exchanging messages through intermediaries and transition gradually toward more direct negotiations.
​The sources explained that Rezaei's refusal prevented proceeding with this step, though it did not lead to a halt in indirect communications, which Qatar and Pakistan continue to manage in an attempt to align positions concerning the Strait of Hormuz, US sanctions, and the Iranian nuclear file.
​According to the sources, discussions held by the Iranian delegation with Qatari officials focused on a formula to reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for a partial lifting of the blockade and the easing of certain US sanctions. The mutual execution of these commitments would serve as an initial trust-building test, paving the way for subsequent talks on the nuclear program.
​The First-Step Dilemma
​A diplomat familiar with the mediation told "Erem News" that a Qatari delegation visited Tehran in recent days, conducting contacts with various parties within the Iranian establishment to overcome one of the main obstacles facing a potential understanding: determining which side makes the first concession and the nature of corresponding guarantees.
​He explained that discussions addressed methods for phased trust-building to ensure neither side views its step as a unrequited concession, but rather as part of mutual obligations guaranteeing the continuation of the negotiating process.
​According to the diplomat, mediators conveyed to Tehran an American willingness to commit to refraining from resuming military strikes against Iran should differences emerge during upcoming negotiations, relying on mediation instead of escalation whenever talks stall on pending files.
​He noted that contacts with the US administration intensified over the past two days, focusing on avoiding any military escalation in the coming few days to allow the Iranian leadership space to study the proposals and deliver its response.
​He added that mediators observe an inclination in Tehran toward examining a near-term agreement that could open the way for a broader settlement on an abbreviated timeline—an outcome Washington also seeks, though disagreements persist over step sequencing, implementation mechanisms, and guarantees.
​Negotiation Mandate and Iranian Conditions
​These moves coincide with Iranian signals indicating the possibility of advancing the diplomatic track, following President Masoud Pezeshkian's announcement on Monday that Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei granted the government specific powers regarding talks aimed at ending the war.
​Pezeshkian affirmed that Tehran seeks to resolve the crisis through dialogue, without disclosing the nature of the new powers or the boundaries of the mandate granted to the government.
​For his part, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced that consultations via Qatar and Pakistan are proceeding at an intensive pace, confirming that reopening the Strait of Hormuz and resuming negotiations with the United States are contingent on Washington accepting the conditions presented by Tehran.
​Tehran maintains its insistence on addressing the strait file and lifting the blockade and sanctions prior to moving to other issues, whereas Washington seeks to expand talks to encompass the nuclear program and comprehensive settlement arrangements.
​Here emerges one of the most sensitive nodes in negotiations: Tehran demands practical guarantees regarding the termination of restrictions imposed on it and the release of its frozen funds, along with understandings on navigation lanes and vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, the United States seeks assurance that any sanctions relief will be met with tangible progress on security and nuclear files.
​Fears of Israeli Escalation
​In parallel with diplomatic tracks, fears are rising that American and Israeli military preparations could undermine opportunities for an agreement, particularly as discussions continue regarding the nature, boundaries, and objectives of any new confrontation with Iran.
​Israeli media reports discussed options for expanding military operations against Iran in coordination with Washington, amidst estimates that any new escalation could extend to Tehran's allies in the region, foremost among them Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and armed factions in the Gaza Strip.
​Circulated scenarios include targeting energy facilities, vital infrastructure, and Iranian military and nuclear sites—options whose discussion does not imply a final decision on execution.
​This scene places mediators in a race against time to secure an initial understanding preventing the region from sliding into a wider confrontation, especially since any military escalation could impact navigation security, energy supplies, and regional and international economic stability.
​Disagreements Over the Utility of War
​In an analysis of the situation, Professor of International Relations Dr. Waleed Safi views the intensification of mediation efforts as a reflection of regional states' desire to avoid a new military confrontation whose repercussions could spill into their territories, imposing heavy security and economic costs.
​Safi told "Erem News" that the US administration is experiencing divergence in assessing the most suitable option for dealing with Iran; one trend considers negotiations less costly and more capable of achieving political results, while another views continued negotiation as granting Tehran additional time without securing core concessions, thereby pushing toward the military option.
​He explained that while the United States possesses the capacity to inflict extensive damage on Iranian nuclear facilities and missile depots, it has not succeeded, in his assessment, in translating its military superiority during previous confrontations into political gains that impose Washington's terms on Tehran or force its surrender.
​He noted that differences are not confined to the American side, but extend to Israeli assessments regarding the timing and objectives of operations, amidst divergences between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and security and military agencies concerning the utility of launching new strikes, and whether the objective is altering the regime's behavior or seeking its complete removal.
​Hormuz and the Nuclear File: Who Concedes First?
​According to Safi, diplomatic efforts currently center on extracting mutual concessions that can be built upon, but the Iranian position remains highly complex given Tehran's insistence on receiving trust-building measures prior to moving to core negotiations.
​He pointed out that differences regarding the Strait of Hormuz do not merely concern declaring its reopening, but include navigation arrangements, determining lanes and vessels permitted to transit, and the extent to which this is linked to US measures regarding lifting the blockade, releasing frozen funds, and easing sanctions.
​He added that Tehran does not appear ready to move to discussing the nuclear file according to the US vision before obtaining guarantees regarding the execution of reciprocal commitments, making an agreement on step sequencing a decisive factor in the future of negotiations.
​Safi noted that the diplomatic track still lacks clarity at a time when US and Israeli military preparations continue, considering that contacts between President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reflect the persistent presence of the military option on the decision-making table.
​Nevertheless, Safi did not rule out that Trump might grant Qatari and Pakistani mediators an additional opportunity following the US midterm elections, rather than moving directly to a new escalation, particularly in light of mounting debate within the United States regarding the military and economic costs of war.
​Source: Erem News / Rum News Agency