Negotiating with the Enemy: A Solution or Damage?
IRNA’s Talaqi program features a civil debate between two divergent views on diplomacy with the United States
IRNA’s Talaqi program hosts a civil debate between Mohsen Baharvand and Foad Izdi on negotiating with the United States. Baharvand argues negotiation is a tool to be used for victory, while Izdi warns that continued talks could invite greater pressure or even nuclear threats. Both emphasize mutual respect and the goal of reducing tensions, with the discussion highlighting the complex dynamics of diplomacy and Iran’s defensive strength.
Tehran, IRNA reports on the program Talaqi, where former Iranian diplomat Mohsen Baharvand argues that we must know what we want—negotiation or war—and answers: neither. He says Iran seeks victory, and that negotiation is a tool to be used at the right moment. In contrast, Foad Izdi, an academic and researcher with political affinities, contends that reliance on negotiation has not yielded results and could, if continued, expose Iran’s infrastructure to attack by the United States and even raise the specter of nuclear involvement. Baharvand dismisses such forecasts as “self-fulfilling” prophecies that may come true regardless of intent.
The exchange on IRNA’s program “Talaqi” pairs Baharvand, a veteran diplomat who has served as Iran’s ambassador to the United Kingdom and as deputy legal affairs, with Izdi, a scholar seen as politically leaning. Despite their differences, both speakers maintain mutual respect and emphasize that they did not come to quarrel. They agree that since recent wars, the United States has recognized Iran as a formidable and durable presence. Baharvand adds that Iran’s defensive strength creates diplomatic opportunities that can be used tactically to manage tensions; Izdi notes, however, that such opportunities would not exist if the Strait of Hormuz remains blocked to compel a change in U.S. behavior.
The pairing of a long‑time diplomat with a critic of negotiating with the United States, particularly from the Trump era, is presented as a pointed yet courteous dialogue. The program concludes by inviting audiences to watch, listen, and read this classic, frank debate.