Ghalibaf Says Israel and the U.S. ‘Do Not Believe in Dialogue’: Is Iran Walking Away From the Table?
Iran’s parliament speaker says Washington and Israel are neither committed to ceasefire nor dialogue, putting renewed pressure on the peace track.
Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has delivered one of the clearest warnings yet that Tehran may be losing faith in the current peace track. His message is blunt: the United States and Israel are neither committed to a ceasefire nor believers in dialogue.
The timing is crucial. Israel has escalated strikes in Lebanon, including attacks on Beirut’s southern suburbs. The United States continues to enforce a naval blockade around Iranian commerce and has carried out what it calls defensive strikes on Iranian military sites. Trump says negotiations are still alive. Iran says Washington’s positions keep shifting and that Israeli attacks make diplomacy meaningless.
Ghalibaf’s statement fits a broader Iranian argument: Tehran cannot negotiate while its allies are being bombed and its shipping is being blocked. From Iran’s perspective, the ceasefire was supposed to be comprehensive across fronts. If Lebanon burns, Tehran claims the ceasefire has already been violated. If the U.S. supports or enables Israel while demanding Iranian concessions, Iran sees negotiation as a trap.
Washington sees it differently. U.S. officials argue that Iran is using proxies, maritime pressure and missile threats while demanding sanctions relief. They say defensive strikes are necessary to protect shipping and regional allies. Trump’s team wants Iran to surrender or dilute enriched uranium, reopen Hormuz and accept limits before receiving benefits. In that reading, Iran is the side using negotiations to buy time.
The problem is that both sides can accuse the other of bad faith with some evidence. Israel’s Lebanon strikes undermine the diplomatic environment. Iran’s threats against U.S. bases and Gulf states undermine trust. The U.S. blockade keeps pressure on Tehran. Iran’s support for Hezbollah keeps pressure on Israel. Every move is framed as defensive by the actor making it and aggressive by the target.
Ghalibaf’s language matters because he is not a marginal voice. He sits at the intersection of parliament, national-security politics and Iran’s hardline establishment. When he says the other side does not believe in dialogue, he is preparing the public for the possibility that talks fail. He is also warning mediators — especially Pakistan, Qatar and Oman — that Iran’s patience has limits.
The phrase also serves a deterrent purpose. If Tehran is about to suspend talks, encourage retaliation or harden its terms, officials need to justify that shift. Saying the enemy rejects dialogue creates political cover for escalation.
But Iran also has incentives not to walk away completely. The economy is under stress. The blockade is costly. Frozen assets matter. Gulf retaliation risks widening the war. China and Russia may prefer controlled tension over uncontrolled collapse. That means Ghalibaf’s statement may be pressure, not final rupture.
The headline asks whether Iran is walking away from the table. The answer is that Tehran is creating the conditions to do so if Israel continues striking Lebanon and Washington refuses up-front concessions. That does not mean diplomacy is dead. It means the table is now surrounded by fire.
In wars like this, peace does not fail all at once. It fails one strike, one statement, one rejected condition at a time.