In the latest episode of MintCast, MintPress director and host speaks with Dr. Seyed Mohammad Marandi, professor at the University of Tehran and a prominent voice in Western media debates, to unpack the latest developments in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran — and why Tehran is increasingly dismissive of Washington’s calls for negotiations.
The interview comes amid a dramatic shift in rhetoric from Donald Trump, who moved from threatening to “annihilate” Iran to calling for renewed talks. According to Marandi, who was present during recent backchannel negotiations in Pakistan, the U.S. approach has been inconsistent and ultimately unconvincing to Iranian officials.
“There is a deep lack of trust,” Marandi explains, pointing to Washington’s simultaneous use of threats and diplomacy. “You cannot talk about negotiations while escalating war and targeting a country’s infrastructure.”
Listen to the full Podcast on Spotify, Itunes and on all streaming platforms
That skepticism has extended to Vice President JD Vance, who recently returned to Islamabad for further discussions. Marandi publicly dismissed the visit, arguing that Iranian leadership sees little value in engaging under current conditions.
Adding to tensions, calls from U.S. policy circles to assassinate Iranian officials have further eroded any remaining confidence.
A recent op-ed by American Enterprise Institute fellow and former White House speech writer Marc Thiessen in the Washington Post openly calls for assassinating members of Iran’s negotiating team — a move Marandi describes as “extraordinary” and indicative of the broader hostility shaping Washington’s posture.
Under these circumstances, Marandi questions whether negotiations serve any real purpose.
“When one side is openly discussing eliminating the other’s leadership, it raises serious questions about intent,” he says.
Despite the pressure, Iran appears to be consolidating its position both domestically and internationally. Marandi notes that, rather than fracturing Iranian society, the war has strengthened public resolve. “People are rallying,” he says. “There is anger, but also a sense of unity in the face of external aggression.”
Regionally, the conflict is exposing deeper fractures. Gulf states like the United Arab Emirates have publicly presented themselves as neutral, but reports suggest a more active role in supporting U.S. and Israeli operations — a contradiction that has not gone unnoticed in Tehran.
At the same time, Iran’s growing ties with China and Russia signal a broader geopolitical shift. The war is increasingly seen not just as a regional conflict, but as part of a larger struggle over global influence and economic power, particularly as tensions rise around the Strait of Hormuz and global energy markets.
For Washington, the consequences may be significant. “The United States risks undermining its own position,” Marandi argues, suggesting that aggressive policies could accelerate the erosion of U.S. influence and strain alliances.
Beyond Iran, the conflict continues to reverberate across the region. In Lebanon, Israeli military operations have met sustained resistance from Hezbollah, raising questions about the limits of Israeli power and the potential for further escalation.
As the war drags on, Marandi’s assessment is clear: the strategy pursued by Washington and its allies is not only failing to achieve its goals, but may be reshaping the regional and global order in ways that ultimately work against them.
