On the eve of September 28, the likely date for the possible reimposition of UN Security Council sanctions on Iran, rumors have circulated about contacts between Iranian and U.S. representatives. Although these reports have not yet been officially confirmed by either side, they carry significance even as media speculation: Iran continues to prioritize negotiation as its first-choice solution.

Tehran’s nuclear diplomacy in recent years has been specifically grounded in negotiation, engagement, and confidence-building. The latest link in this chain was forged by Iran’s Foreign Minister in Egypt with Rafael Grossi, Director General of the IAEA. Additionally, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, held constructive talks with Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs.

Nevertheless, France and the UK, along with the U.S., voted against a resolution to extend the sanctions waiver on Iran, demonstrating once again that they lack consistent policy support for diplomatic advancement. By contrast, Iran’s official and dominant voice remains committed to negotiation and dialogue.

However, the domestic and regional environment is not devoid of dissenting voices. Certain hardline circles in Iran and abroad, under growing Western pressure, have raised options such as closing the Strait of Hormuz or withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran’s official stance, however, continues to favor diplomacy and dialogue. Masoud Pezeshkian, in his most recent statement, emphasized that the snapback of sanctions would not hinder Iran’s evolutionary progress. Speaking at a ceremony honoring winners of scientific Olympiads, he said:

"The enemies of this land cannot block our path; it is impossible to stop anyone determined, capable, and willing to advance. We have never surrendered to excessive demands, nor will we bow, because we have the ability and power to effect change. We just need to trust those who possess the ability and will."

Iran’s Choice: Diplomacy Backed by Strength

For the past four decades, Iran’s nuclear policy has rested on a clear principle: diplomacy without the backing of national power is ineffective, and strength without a diplomatic vision loses its meaning. Iran has never closed the door to dialogue; from the intensive JCPOA negotiations to recent contacts with Europe, the IAEA, and even the U.S., Tehran has consistently sought a political solution.

Moreover, if today Iran’s voice is being heard, it is not solely due to diplomatic initiatives but also because of Iran’s tangible strength—its indigenous defense capabilities and regional influence. Together, these dimensions give Iran’s foreign policy credibility and weight.

Iran has taken the necessary steps: engaging with the European troika, cooperating with the IAEA, and, if rumors of high-level contacts with the U.S. are accurate, showing initiative even at the highest diplomatic levels. Political logic therefore dictates that the responsibility for any avoidance of diplomacy now rests with the U.S. and Europe. Should Europe and the U.S. pursue threats and sanctions instead of engagement, they must accept that they themselves are creating conditions for a widening crisis. Iran has demonstrated good faith and readiness for dialogue; it is now the West’s turn to respond.

Iran and Rational Path

Calls for drastic measures—such as closing the Strait of Hormuz or leaving the NPT—serve opponents of diplomacy more than they provide solutions. Such actions would not only limit Iran’s room for maneuver internationally but also challenge its legal legitimacy. Experience shows that whenever Iran has advanced with diplomatic initiative backed by field strength, it has successfully managed crises. Conversely, when maximum pressure and impulsive actions have dominated, costs have multiplied.

Nonetheless, it is also evident that if the Western bloc continues to pursue unilateralism and coercion in the face of diplomacy, Iran may consider other options. Naturally, the first and last choice of Iran’s 14th government and the broader leadership remains peaceful, negotiation-based solutions. Yet persistent Western avoidance of dialogue will open alternative paths for Tehran, potentially complicating the existing situation. It is clear that any further complication is the direct responsibility of the Western side, particularly European countries.

Iran has chosen the rational path: diplomacy backed by strength. This approach offers the country a way through the current dangerous passage. If the West genuinely seeks to prevent confrontation, it must take this message seriously. Otherwise, responsibility for any future crisis will lie not with Iran, but with those who avoided dialogue. In a tense world, political rationality demands that diplomacy and strength be viewed together, not in opposition. This is the policy Iran has followed—and will continue to follow.