Iran has delivered one of its most pointed indictments yet of American diplomatic reliability, with senior officials declaring that breaking promises is not merely a policy choice by Washington; it is embedded in the very character of the United States as a negotiating partner.
The accusation, levelled as both countries attempt to hammer out a permanent end to the 2026 war, goes to the heart of why the most consequential diplomatic process of this decade remains mired in mutual suspicion, missed deadlines, and contradictory messages.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a BRICS ministers’ meeting in New Delhi, put it with clinical bluntness: “Currently, trust is the most important issue. We cannot trust the Americans at all. As a result, everything has to be precise, and everything has to be clearly defined before we can reach an agreement.” The United States has now walked away from a major Iran nuclear agreement once before, a pattern that Tehran’s negotiators have not forgotten and are determined not to repeat.
A Pattern of Broken Promises?
Iran’s distrust of Washington did not begin with the current war. On 8 May 2018, the United States under the first Trump administration announced its withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme reached in July 2015 by Iran and the P5+1 and the European Union. At the time, the International Atomic Energy Agency had verified that Iran was in compliance with the JCPOA, and there was no evidence otherwise. The consequences were severe.
The withdrawal led Iran to take actions contrary to the deal, including stockpiling roughly 440 kilograms of highly enriched uranium. By December 2024, the UN nuclear watchdog IAEA reported enrichment to levels approaching weapons-grade, and also found an unprecedented stockpile of highly enriched uranium without a credible civilian purpose, giving Iran the capacity to produce enough fissile material for multiple bombs on short notice. It was against this backdrop that the 2026 war erupted.
On 28 February, Israel and the United States began a series of strikes against Iran, saying they aimed to induce regime change in the country and target its nuclear and ballistic missile programme. The consequences were global: Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 per cent of the world’s oil and natural gas is shipped in peacetime, causing shockwaves through global energy markets and spiking the price of oil.
‘Made Us Reluctant About Real Intentions of Americans’
Even as the guns fell temporarily silent and negotiators gathered, first in Islamabad, then in Switzerland, the trust deficit has proven the most stubborn obstacle to a final agreement. Araghchi said contradictory messages from Washington had “made us reluctant about the real intentions of Americans,” adding that Iran was “in doubt about their seriousness” and that negotiations would move forward only if Washington was ready for a “fair and balanced deal.”
The contradictions Araghchi referred to have been on full public display. He noted that US President Donald Trump had reacted to Tehran’s formal response to the American side, calling it “completely unacceptable.” Later, Iran stated that it again received messages from the Americans indicating they were keen to continue talks and continue interaction. Araghchi also pointedly noted that the US appeared confused about its own goals, saying Washington had no clear plan for exiting the war it had imposed on Iran.
Tehran academic Mohammad Eslami, speaking to reporters, described the depth of public fury his country feels. He said Trump’s “lies and broken promises” had shattered Iranians’ trust in a diplomatic solution, adding: “Every night, there are lots of people chanting all around the street against Trump. And also, unfortunately, many of them are chanting against negotiation with Donald Trump.” He described Trump as “one of the most unreliable persons in the decades in international relations, a man who has betrayed diplomacy two times.”
The Islamabad Memorandum: A Deal But Not Yet Peace
Despite the poisoned atmosphere, diplomacy did inch forward. On June 17 Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed remotely the Islamabad Memorandum to end the war between both countries and Israel, with Trump signing it during dinner with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Palace of Versailles following the G7 summit, after which Pezeshkian signed it in Tehran.
But the memorandum has exposed fresh fault lines rather than closing old ones. The US and Iran fell immediately into dispute over whether Tehran had agreed to allow UN inspectors to view bombed Iranian nuclear sites, with differing accounts emerging as Iran’s president met with Pakistani officials and technical teams worked on details following talks in Switzerland.
The Strait of Hormuz remains an open wound. The US military’s Central Command stated that the Strait of Hormuz remained open, with CENTCOM spokesman Navy Captain Tim Hawkins saying: “Iran does not control the Strait of Hormuz. Traffic continues to flow, and US forces are monitoring the situation to ensure this remains the case.” Iran disputes this framing and has said all commercial vessels must coordinate with its authorities to transit the strait.
Meanwhile, Iran’s foreign minister delivered what he called the first real test of the new agreement. Araghchi praised Pakistani and Qatari mediation, saying they had delivered “major progress” toward ending the Lebanon war, and pointed to sanctions waivers for oil and petrochemical exports, the lifting of the blockade, the release of some frozen assets, and a major reconstruction and development plan for Iran. But he made clear that Lebanon would define whether any of it held: “The first real test: Lebanon deconfliction cell.”
Warmongers in the Shadows And $80 Billion in War Costs
Iran’s foreign minister has also accused unnamed actors of actively trying to derail any settlement. Araghchi pointed to “subversive” elements who have tried to sabotage diplomacy, warning: “There are warmongers who want to drag the United States into another war, and I hope that America will not make a mistake and that diplomacy will ultimately prevail.”
The financial cost of the conflict for the United States is staggering. The Pentagon has told senators it needs roughly $80 billion, mostly to cover the cost of the US war against Iran, adding to what is already a sizable military spending boost being sought by US President Trump.
Oman’s foreign minister, Badr Albusaidi, who mediated earlier rounds of talks, wrote in The Economist that the United States had “lost control of its own foreign policy,” a claim that summarised what many in the region have long suspected: that the most dangerous variable in these negotiations is not Iran’s nuclear programme but Washington’s ability to hold to any position long enough for it to mean something.
The Clock Is Ticking, But Trust Remains the Missing Element
The US and Iran are now working on a final nuclear agreement with an August deadline. The technical teams are meeting. The mediators, Pakistan, Qatar, and China, are still travelling. But as one regional diplomat told US broadcaster PBS, Iran “viewed the Lebanon ceasefire as point number one, and if you can’t abide by point number one, then why should we discuss two, three, four?”
Pakistan’s foreign ministry spokesperson Tahir Andrabi sought to project calm, telling reporters in Islamabad: “The clock on diplomacy has not stopped. The peace process is working.”
