Iran has denied it is holding talks with the US, with Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei insisting Tehran's only active negotiations are with Oman over a temporary shipping route in the Strait of Hormuz.
But US President Donald Trump has presented a very different picture. He said negotiations with Tehran began on Monday and accused the Iranian leadership of being “duplicitous” about the process.
While acknowledging Iran’s public denials, Mr Trump said: “For some reason when they’re talking, they don’t like saying that they’re talking."
He added that Washington’s main objective remained Tehran’s denuclearisation.
The reality appears to sit somewhere between the two accounts. Iran may be correct that it is not engaged in direct negotiations with Washington, while diplomatic messages continue to move through intermediaries.
What is clear is that Iran has been highly active diplomatically. In the past 48 hours, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has spoken with officials in Oman, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Pakistan – in some cases more than once. Islamabad has emerged as one of Tehran’s preferred channels for communication with Washington, alongside Muscat’s long-standing role as a mediator.
Regional diplomacy has also intensified. Iraq has called for renewed dialogue, while Saudi Arabia has discussed de-escalation efforts with Qatar and Jordan.
Qatar also moved to strengthen regional co-ordination. Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman, the country's Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, held a series of calls with officials from the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain on Monday to discuss joint efforts to reduce tensions.
What experts are saying
Iran and the US have not held direct talks since their meeting at the Swiss resort of Burgenstock in mid-June. An interim deal aimed at paving the way for a broader settlement collapsed as the two long-time adversaries exchanged fire, although diplomatic efforts continued through intermediaries.
Analysts say both sides are carefully managing the public narrative for domestic audiences, while keeping channels open behind the scenes.
Tehran’s denial of talks may be technically accurate if it is referring only to direct negotiations. Messages can still be exchanged through intermediaries without either side publicly acknowledging a formal dialogue.
Likewise, Mr Trump’s suggestion that a major agreement is close may reflect Washington’s preferred outcome rather than a finalised deal.
The role of regional mediators appears central to maintaining contact. Oman and Qatar, in particular, have helped create channels where communication between Washington and Tehran can continue despite deep political hostility.
Andreas Krieg, associate professor at King’s College London, pointed to the importance of regional actors in enabling the process. "Thanks to Oman and Qatar there is actually a diplomatic process to speak of – there is no way the Trump administration would be able to speak to the Iranians on their own," he wrote on X.
The involvement of Gulf states also suggests the issue extends beyond the nuclear file. Any agreement would likely need to address wider regional concerns, including shipping security, escalation risks and freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.
What we can conclude
The two sides may be describing the same diplomatic process in different ways.
Iran can maintain that it is not negotiating directly with the US while allowing messages to be exchanged through Oman, Qatar, Pakistan and other parties. Mr Trump, meanwhile, can claim negotiations are under way because Washington is involved indirectly.
Iran’s mixed signals may also reflect internal divisions, with diplomats exploring possible compromises while hardline factions remain reluctant to publicly concede ground.
Islamabad’s growing role suggests it is functioning as a discreet communication channel between Tehran and Washington, allowing both sides to test possible compromises without acknowledging direct negotiations.
The evidence points to active diplomacy behind the scenes. Publicly, Iran and the US continue to present versions of events that serve their own political needs, while regional mediators work to keep a fragile diplomatic process alive.
