TEHRAN – In the last days of April, as Oman prepared to host the third round of indirect nuclear talks between Iran and the United States, the Washington Post published an article titled “Iranian Elite Grows Supportive of Nuclear Talks as Economic Fears Spike,” which disingenuously insists that Tehran entered the nuclear talks “because it faces the prospect of economic collapse.”

Authored by Susannah George and Nilo Tabrizy, the piece recycles a tired narrative: a “sanctions-crippled” Iran, trembling under economic strain, is forced to negotiate with Washington out of desperation.

But peel back the layers of this Western media trope and you'll see how the article spins a yarn of desperation, leaning on shadowy “analysts” and a curated slice of Iranian media, only to collapse like a house of cards.

Far from a frail supplicant, Iran approached these talks with the poise of a chess grandmaster—and it was the U.S., not Iran, that retreated from its failed “maximum pressure” campaign to seek dialogue, with Iran’s conditions.

The flawed premise: Who blinked first?

The Post’s central claim—that Iran’s elite are spooked into talks—collapses under scrutiny. Far from pleading for relief, it was the United States that initiated dialogue.

In March, U.S. President Donald Trump sent a letter to the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, via Emirati diplomat Anwar Gargash, seeking to de-escalate tensions.

Tehran’s response was characteristically measured—rather than groveling for this opening, it engaged in indirect talks mediated by Oman that were strictly limited to nuclear issues.

“Let me be clear: under no circumstances will we negotiate on any other matter but the nuclear program,” declared Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi after concluding the third round of talks on Saturday, underscoring a red line etched into Iran’s diplomatic DNA.

This is not the behavior of a desperate state. It is the calculated maneuvering of a nation that has weathered four decades of sanctions and hybrid warfare.

Ayatollah Khamenei has repeatedly dismissed negotiations with “bully states” that seek to “dominate and impose their own expectations.”

His skepticism is rooted in history: The U.S. issued direct and indirect threats against Iran about “all the options” it has on the table. It then became part of the negotiations that produced the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Later, Washington unilaterally abandoned the pact despite Iran’s commitment to its implementation, as confirmed by international organizations. Finally, under Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign in 2018, it reimposed crushing sanctions, inflicting “unnecessary suffering” on ordinary Iranians.

Once again flip-flopping in his second term, Trump shifted the focus of his letter to the Iranian leadership solely to the nuclear issue, reportedly adopting a respectful tone.

This marked a stark contrast to his earlier “maximum pressure” directive, which disregarded Iran’s red lines and targeted multiple areas, including its defensive capabilities.

While Iran rejected Washington's “maximum pressure” approach, Tehran’s calculated response to Trump’s letter ultimately paved the way for the current indirect nuclear talks mediated by Oman.

Tehran’s willingness to engage reflects a shift in U.S. posture, not Iranian weakness. After months of “maximum pressure” and “bomb Iran” rhetoric, Washington’s overture signals the failure of its previous policy.

Iran, meanwhile, has chosen to negotiate as a tactical move while maintaining the upper hand—an advantage evident in three key areas: the strict limitation of talks to the nuclear issue, the choice of venue, and the indirect nature of the negotiations.

Hardening under economic pressure

The Post’s portrayal of Iran’s economy as a house of cards ignores a critical reality: sanctions have not broken Tehran—they have hardened it.

While inflation and currency fluctuations are real challenges, Iran’s resistance economy has spurred innovation in sectors from drone technology to pharmaceuticals.

Domestic manufacturing now supplies 85% of medical needs, and tech startups flourish despite financial blockades.  

Tehran has turned adversity into innovation: defense products that rival global standards, a pharmaceutical sector defying isolation, and a nuclear program that humbles its foes.

Internationally, Iran is anchoring itself within a rising multipolar order. Trade with China hit $18 billion in 2023, while membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and BRICS opens alternative economic corridors.

“The nation’s affairs should not be dependent on talks,” the Leader of the Islamic Revolution recently asserted, emphasizing ongoing national projects in infrastructure, energy, and defense.

Leadership continuity: The myth of division 

The Post’s claim of an “emerging consensus” among Iranian "elites" misreads Tehran’s power structure.

Strategic decisions in Iran flow from the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), and other institutions, not just the presidency or “elites.”

In a 2021 speech, Ayatollah Khamenei explained the country’s decision-making process: “Foreign policy is not determined by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but shaped by higher-level bodies and senior officials of the country.”

He emphasized that while the Ministry of Foreign Affairs participates in the process, it is not the final decision-maker.

Instead, he described the ministry as an executor of foreign policy decisions, which are made in forums like the SNSC, where all key officials are present.

The authors’ blind spots: Expertise matters

The Post’s analysis suffers from another critical flaw: its authors and the “experts” they cite lack genuine expertise on Iran.

Nilo Tabrizy, a video journalist specializing in “visual forensics,” has no background in Iranian geopolitics.

An “analyst” such as Gregory Brew of Ian Bremmer’s Eurasia Group, a consultancy with ties to Western corporate interests, recycles stale narratives of elite discord.

Their sources—anonymous analysts and cherry-picked Iranian media quotes—fail to provide meaningful insight.

They introduce an “expert,” Kusha Sefat, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Tehran, as being “close to Iran’s conservative leadership,” offering no evidence for the claim.

While Sefat may offer useful analysis on sociology, he clearly lacks knowledge of what is happening “behind the scenes” between Iran’s leader and the president, the way the Post has cited him.

Additionally, by framing Iran’s pragmatism as weakness, the Post absolves Washington of its role in destabilizing West Asia.

A masterclass in selective amnesia, the article overlooks Iran’s resilience: it not only outlasted Saddam Hussein’s U.S.-backed invasion and withstood hybrid warfare by the Israeli regime, but also transformed sanctions into a catalyst for technological autonomy.

Moreover, it fails to mention key strategic alliances, including the 2021 China-Iran 25-year cooperation pact and Iran-Russia’s 20-year strategic pact.

This is not journalism—it’s narrative warfare. George and Tabrizy’s depiction of a desperate Iran echoes the fading unipolar mindset of the past. The West, clinging to outdated tropes, risks losing sight of the bigger picture.

Tehran engages the world not from a place of weakness, but with hard-earned strength. While the U.S. may have drafted the letter, Iran firmly holds the pen that writes its future.

To truly understand Tehran, Western media must cast aside outdated Orientalist clichés and appreciate Iran for what it genuinely is—a nation defined by enduring strength and innovation, deeply rooted in one of the world's oldest civilizations.