Iranian Officials Say Tehran Is Prolonging U.S. Talks as Midterm Elections and War Fears Shape Strategy
By Robeka Irfan — SCN NEWS
DUBAI,— Iran is deliberately keeping negotiations with the United States in a prolonged stalemate as its leadership weighs the political pressures facing President Donald Trump before November's congressional elections, according to senior Iranian officials cited by Reuters. The approach reflects Tehran's reluctance to offer concessions that could produce a diplomatic breakthrough for Washington, but it is also driven by fears of renewed American and Israeli military action and deep mistrust following repeated breakdowns in negotiations.
Three senior Iranian officials and another person familiar with Tehran's thinking told Reuters that the Iranian leadership believes Trump could authorize further strikes to end the deadlock in the eight-month conflict. Speaking anonymously, the officials described a strategy of maintaining diplomatic contact without committing to terms that could deliver an immediate agreement. Iran's Foreign Ministry and the White House did not respond to Reuters requests for comment, leaving the account without an official public confirmation from either government.
The reported strategy comes just two weeks before the November 3 U.S. midterm elections, with the conflict continuing to disrupt energy markets and commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. High gasoline prices and the economic consequences of the war have become prominent issues in American political debate. Iranian officials believe those pressures give Tehran a reason to avoid concessions before the vote, although the eventual electoral effects cannot be established from their statements alone.
The dispute centers on sharply different conditions for ending hostilities and restarting substantive nuclear negotiations. Washington wants Iran's nuclear programme included at the beginning of discussions, while Tehran insists that the United States first address its demands concerning the maritime blockade, sanctions, frozen assets and the cessation of military operations. Neither side has publicly announced a mutually accepted framework capable of resolving those disagreements.
Iran has proposed a seven-day arrangement, communicated through Qatari mediators, under which shipping through the Strait of Hormuz could resume while remaining subject to Iranian control. In exchange, Tehran is seeking an end to the American maritime blockade, relief from restrictions on Iranian oil exports, access to frozen financial assets and a broader halt to hostilities. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Sunday that the proposal remained available and that messages continued to pass through intermediaries.
The waterway remains central to the confrontation because it is a major route for international energy shipments. Iranian attacks and threats have sharply reduced commercial traffic, while American naval restrictions and sanctions have damaged Iran's ability to export oil. The result is a standoff in which both governments possess means of applying economic pressure, but neither has yet secured the political and security concessions it is demanding.
The conflict began in February when the United States and Israel launched strikes against Iran during a period of renewed diplomatic engagement. Iranian officials also point to an Israeli attack in June 2025 that disrupted plans for another round of nuclear negotiations in Oman. Those episodes have become central to Tehran's argument that negotiations cannot be treated as a reliable guarantee against further military action.
Trump has said the United States will not launch another bombing campaign against Iran before the November 3 elections. Iranian officials nevertheless told Reuters that they expect further attacks could occur after that date or in response to another escalation. The difference between Washington's stated timetable and Tehran's expectations highlights the uncertainty surrounding the negotiations, rather than establishing that a new military operation has already been ordered.
Security consultations between Washington and Israel are adding to the diplomatic tension. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth discussed Iran with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during an unannounced visit to Israel on Monday, according to Israeli officials cited by Reuters. The meeting took place ahead of Israel's parliamentary election, but its occurrence does not by itself establish a decision to resume joint strikes.
Iran's negotiating position carries substantial domestic costs. Annual inflation reached 73.6% in September, according to the Statistical Centre of Iran, while the rial has fallen sharply against the U.S. dollar since Washington restored its maritime blockade in July. The prolonged confrontation has weakened purchasing power, disrupted commercial activity and increased pressure on an economy already affected by years of sanctions and internal difficulties.
Energy-market data also illustrate the damage. According to Vortexa figures cited by Reuters, Iran's seaborne crude exports fell to zero during the second week of September and remained at that level as of October 5. The collapse in shipments has deprived Tehran of a major source of revenue, making a prolonged diplomatic stalemate costly even if Iranian officials believe it preserves negotiating leverage.
Those pressures create a difficult calculation for the Iranian leadership. An agreement could ease economic restrictions and reduce the risk of renewed military action, but concessions made without security assurances could be viewed in Tehran as exposing the country to further pressure. Continuing negotiations without a settlement preserves some diplomatic flexibility while allowing economic damage and public uncertainty to accumulate.
Tehran-based analyst Saeed Leylaz told Reuters that the Iranian leadership sees the delay as a way to influence the American political environment without directly participating in U.S. electoral activity. His assessment reflects an interpretation of Iran's negotiating tactics rather than evidence that Tehran can determine the election's outcome. The November vote remains a domestic American political process shaped by multiple issues beyond the conflict.
Alex Vatanka, director of the Iran programme at the Middle East Institute in Washington, said the Iranian leadership also believes Trump may be pursuing objectives extending beyond a nuclear agreement. In his assessment, Tehran fears that American policy could ultimately threaten the survival of the Islamic Republic, particularly in light of Israel's approach to Iran. That perception helps explain why Iranian officials describe security guarantees and trust as obstacles to a settlement.
The negotiations have therefore become entangled with two separate political calculations. Washington is seeking progress on nuclear restrictions, maritime security and the wider conflict, while Tehran is attempting to avoid an agreement it regards as strategically unfavorable. The approaching U.S. elections have added urgency to the dispute, but the central disagreements over sanctions, security and the Strait of Hormuz would remain even after voting ends.
For international markets, the immediate concern is that continued uncertainty could prolong disruption to shipping and energy supplies. For Iran, the cost is visible in falling export revenue and high inflation. For the United States and its regional partners, the unresolved confrontation creates continuing risks to military personnel, commercial vessels and critical infrastructure.
The latest disclosures suggest that Iran's leadership sees time as a source of diplomatic leverage despite the economic damage caused by the war. Yet the officials' account does not establish that Tehran has ruled out an agreement, nor does it prove that another U.S.-Israeli attack is imminent. With indirect contacts continuing through mediators, the central question is whether either government is prepared to change its negotiating conditions before the stalemate produces another military escalation.