Debate Over Negotiations With the United States: Solution or Liability?
Former diplomat Mohsen Baharvand and academic Fouad Izadi present differing views on diplomacy, deterrence and negotiations.
IRNA’s “Talāghi” program featured a debate between former diplomat Mohsen Baharvand and academic Fouad Izadi on negotiations with the United States. Baharvand described diplomacy as a tool to be used when appropriate, while Izadi argued that negotiations had yielded no results and warned of possible escalation. They also differed over the role of Iran’s defensive capabilities and the Strait of Hormuz.
TEHRAN — A recent episode of IRNA’s “Talāghi” program featured a debate between Mohsen Baharvand, a former Iranian ambassador to the United Kingdom and former deputy legal affairs minister, and Fouad Izadi, an academic and researcher, over whether negotiations with the United States can advance Iran’s interests.
Baharvand argued that Iran’s objective should be victory rather than simply choosing between negotiation and war. In his view, negotiation is one instrument that can be used when circumstances are appropriate. He also said Iran’s defensive capabilities have created diplomatic opportunities that could help manage tensions.
Izadi took a more skeptical position, arguing that negotiations have so far produced no results. He warned that continuing talks could leave Iran vulnerable to attacks on its infrastructure and even the use of nuclear weapons by the United States. Baharvand characterized such predictions as “self-fulfilling,” according to the program’s account.
The two participants reportedly agreed that recent wars have led the United States to recognize Iran as a difficult opponent. They also emphasized their shared respect and said the discussion was intended to explore differences rather than provoke a confrontation.
The debate also addressed the Strait of Hormuz. Baharvand viewed Iran’s defensive strength as a source of diplomatic leverage, while Izadi argued that such leverage would not exist without fully closing the waterway to force a change in U.S. behavior.
The program presented the exchange as a respectful discussion between two contrasting perspectives on Iran’s relations with the United States, particularly during the Trump administration.