Iran and the E3: Negotiations on a cliffedge

Just hours after deputy foreign ministers of Iran, Britain, France, and Germany convened in Istanbul to discuss the nuclear deal, Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei issued a message of defiance. “These enemies are hammering cold iron,” he said, “The Islamic Republic will, by God’s grace, become stronger by the day.”

Khamenei, who had declared just a couple of weeks earlier that Iran was ready to respond to any attack with greater force, reaffirmed in a more recent speech that Iran’s military and scientific efforts would advance with renewed vigor. “It is the duty of our military commanders to continuously equip the country with the tools needed to safeguard our security and independence,” he said.

But this warning wasn’t just rhetoric aimed at rallying domestic public opinion against Iran’s adversaries. It reflected a deeper sense of anxiety and mistrust gripping the Iranian leadership. This sense is sharpened by recent Israeli strikes that exposed the fragility of the diplomatic path Tehran has walked for years with interlocutors it believes are bent on its submission or destruction.

The Iranian leadership increasingly suspects that the current negotiations are merely a cover for a new strategic deception. This is reminiscent of the lead-up to the last war, when Israel, with a green light from USA, launched attacks on strategic targets deep inside Iran while nuclear talks with Washington and European powers were underway. US President Donald Trump later boasted about his role in the deception, claiming he had advance knowledge of the full details of the Israeli operation.

Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, articulated the concern. Tehran, he said, is willing to resume talks sooner rather than later, but only if convinced that diplomacy is not a veil for further military escalation. He reminded observers that US officials were coordinating war plans with Israel while simultaneously proposing diplomatic overtures to Iran.

Despite this deep mistrust, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi sent a high-level delegation to Istanbul to engage in talks with the E3.

In this round, the Europeans presented a framework centered on cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency/IAEA and demanded clarification on the fate of nearly 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, reportedly unaccounted for following Israeli and American strikes.

Tehran, however, firmly rejected the suggestion to reactivate the snapback mechanism—a clause in the 2015 agreement that would automatically reimpose sanctions if Iran violated its terms. That deal is effectively set to expire in under two months.

Araghchi, a reformist figure, found himself in the crosshairs of Iran’s hardliners after an appearance on Fox News, where he attempted to reassure Western public opinion. In the interview, he said Iran was prepared to open a new chapter free of slogans like “Death to America” or “Wipe Israel off the map.” He denied any intent to assassinate the US president or Israeli prime minister.

The backlash was swift. Hardliners accused Araghchi of weakness and appeasement. They warned that the discrepancy between Iran’s internal and external messaging might embolden the enemy to escalate further—prompting the foreign minister’s media team to accuse the American network of misrepresenting his remarks.

The reformists, to whom Araghchi and his boss President Masoud Pezeshkian belong, remain cautiously optimistic that diplomacy might defuse a potentially catastrophic war. Their approach is rooted in the understanding that any full-scale confrontation with Israel and the US could destroy not only Iran’s nuclear and missile programs but possibly the structure of the regime itself—and with it, the Islamic Republic.

As the US and Israel continue their efforts to weaken or fragment the Islamic Republic—turning it into a vulnerable, non-threatening state that poses no challenge to Israeli security or Western interests—the examples of Syria, Iraq, and Libya serve as haunting reminders to Iran’s more pragmatic leadership.

Meanwhile, hardliners within the regime seek to project strength, victory, and resilience to the Iranian public. They fear that a loss of public confidence in their governance could spark domestic unrest—seen as a greater threat to the Islamic Republic than any foreign aggression.

In recent days, Israeli media has reported that the country’s intelligence and security agencies are conducting a comprehensive assessment of the recent 12-day conflict, not merely as a postmortem but in preparation for a possible new war. Leaks from Israeli media outlets suggest that Tel Aviv believes the elements of surprise and timing will be decisive in the next round of conflict—particularly amid concerns that Iran may have restored its military capacity damaged by prior strikes.

Iranian sources report that Israel has already begun sabotage operations in northern Iran, targeting energy facilities and triggering a series of mysterious fires. Official Iranian media have labeled these incidents “suspicious,” while outlets aligned with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have directly accused Israel of orchestrating them.

In response, Tehran has moved swiftly to rebuild its defense infrastructure, aided by technical and intelligence support from Russia and China—both of which view Iran as a key pillar in their anti-Western alliance and are deeply concerned about the potential collapse of their regional ally.

Intelligence reports indicate that Beijing and Moscow are actively helping Iran upgrade its air defense systems and missile programs to strengthen its deterrent capabilities.

Iran enters this round of nuclear negotiations fully aware that it is teetering on the brink of another war—one it hopes to avoid, particularly after the recent blows to its military infrastructure.

Israel, on the other hand, is maneuvering to draw the US into a renewed confrontation aimed at finishing what it started. For Israel, the survival of the Islamic Republic remains an existential threat. The stakes would rise dramatically if Tehran were to move from its current state of “nuclear ambiguity” to a point of “nuclear certainty”—catching the international community off guard.

Should that happen, the rules of engagement would shift entirely, forcing all sides to recalibrate their strategies—and compelling Israel to reconsider its position in a newly reshaped regional landscape it may struggle to navigate.