OPEN LETTER: To Tehran, which still refuses to hold face-to-face talks with Washington

Indirect diplomacy: a useful but insufficient tool

Qatari and Pakistani mediation efforts have their value; no one disputes that. They have helped prevent abrupt breakdowns and maintain a minimal channel of communication between two capitals that deeply distrust one another. But ongoing mediation, without ever any direct contact between decision-makers, ultimately becomes an obstacle in itself, slowing down every clarification, every adjustment, and every compromise.

The notable absence of Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff during the Doha sessions, according to a source who requested anonymity, illustrates this remote dynamic in which even the most experienced American envoys find themselves barred from direct contact with their Iranian counterparts.

What a face-to-face meeting could unblock

High-level direct contact would likely speed up clarifications on specific technical points, such as tolls in the Strait of Hormuz or the exact use of the released funds, rather than allowing these issues to get bogged down in exchanges filtered through intermediaries, however competent they may be.

I remain convinced that no mediation, however skillful, can replace a direct exchange between decision-makers who actually bear political responsibility for their decisions. Tehran would gain credibility by agreeing to this face-to-face meeting, even if it were uncomfortable.

Strikes followed by conciliatory statements

One must acknowledge the relative consistency of the U.S. approach to this issue. Donald Trump himself admitted to having “hit them very hard for three nights” the weekend before the Doha talks, before adding that the two sides now “get along very well.” This alternation between military firmness and diplomatic openness, as confusing as it may be to the public, has the merit of maintaining constant pressure on Tehran.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump was discussing with his military advisers, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, all possible options in the event that negotiations fail, including a return to large-scale strikes. This option remains on the table, serving as a constant reminder to Tehran that the current status quo is not guaranteed indefinitely.

Denuclearization Presented as Non-Negotiable

Trump has been crystal clear on this point: “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon otherwise”—a red line he consistently reiterates, even in his most optimistic statements about the progress of the talks.

I give Trump credit for maintaining credible military pressure, which has clearly pushed Iran to the negotiating table—even if only indirectly. On this specific issue, his approach of firmness followed by calculated openness is producing tangible results.

A topic deliberately avoided in technical discussions

It is striking to note that the Doha talks, which focused on the Strait of Hormuz and frozen assets, carefully avoided directly addressing Iran’s nuclear program. U.S. Vice President JD Vance himself confirmed that this issue would be addressed “later,” once logistical challenges had been resolved.

This calculated delay may suit both sides in the short term, but it leaves lingering uncertainty about Tehran’s true intentions regarding its enrichment program—an issue the international community cannot afford to ignore indefinitely.

Transparency Yet to Be Demonstrated

As long as Iran refuses direct contact and full transparency regarding its nuclear facilities, Western mistrust will remain entirely justified, regardless of any technical progress made on other related issues such as maritime traffic.

I sincerely question this strategy of constant postponement. Every week that the nuclear issue remains off the table in direct negotiations is a week in which international trust in Tehran cannot truly be rebuilt.

A bargaining chip that Tehran wants to keep secret

Iran has reiterated its intention to impose tolls on maritime traffic passing through the Strait of Hormuz starting in mid-August 2026, once the toll-free period provided for in the initial agreement expires. Secretary of State Marco Rubio firmly rejected this possibility, warning that Iran would not be allowed to tax ships under a final agreement.

This dispute over tolls perfectly illustrates why indirect contact is no longer sufficient: such a fundamental disagreement over the economic use of a strategic sea lane warrants direct clarification between decision-makers, not a dance of intermediaries who repeat already known positions without ever moving them forward.

U.S. Pressure That Could Force Tehran’s Hand

According to Axios, a U.S. official summed up Washington’s position in no uncertain terms: lifting sanctions as part of a comprehensive agreement would be “100 times more valuable” for Iran than resorting to what the United States calls a “gangster tactic” of imposing tolls.

This American statement—harsh but lucid—aptly sums up the absurdity of Iran’s calculations regarding transit fees. Why negotiate over small transit fees when a comprehensive agreement on sanctions would represent an incomparably greater economic gain for your country?

A Truce Timed for the U.S. Independence Day

Washington and Tehran have agreed to a one-week de-escalation in the Strait of Hormuz ahead of July 4—a timeline that shows that even without direct contact, both sides are able to coordinate their actions on immediate security issues. This capacity for technical coordination stands in stark contrast to their persistent refusal to engage in direct political dialogue.

If your teams can agree on a specific maritime truce timed to coincide with a symbolic American holiday, why couldn’t they agree to a direct meeting to clarify all outstanding issues, rather than continuing to move forward through separately negotiated piecemeal agreements?

An inconsistency that raises questions about the true motivations

This contradiction between effective technical coordination and persistent political deadlock suggests that the refusal to engage in direct dialogue stems more from a calculation of Iranian domestic politics than from any real practical impossibility.

I see this contradiction as proof that the refusal to meet directly is not a technical obstacle, but a deliberate political choice. Tehran knows perfectly well how to coordinate its actions with Washington when it serves its immediate interests.

A history of broken promises that justifies Western caution

The history of nuclear negotiations with Iran is marked by agreements that were signed and then circumvented, promises of transparency that were never fully kept, and repeated cycles of tension and détente that have never led to a lasting and verifiable resolution. This long history amply justifies Washington’s persistent mistrust of any new Iranian promises.

In this context, the current refusal to meet directly is part of a troubling pattern: that of a regime that prefers to manage its international relations from a distance, shielded by intermediaries, rather than fully assuming, face-to-face, the consequences of its commitments.

A Historic Opportunity Not to Be Wasted

Yet the current context offers a rare opportunity: a memorandum of understanding that has already been signed, an ongoing military de-escalation, and economic pressure pushing Iran toward the negotiating table. Wasting this opportunity due to excessive caution over protocol would be a major strategic mistake for Tehran.

I am addressing you directly, Iranian leaders: you have rarely had a diplomatic window as wide open as this one. Closing it out of fear of direct contact would be a choice that your own people might one day bitterly hold against you.

Non-Negotiable Transparency on the Nuclear Issue

The West—and the United States in particular—must continue to demand full transparency regarding Iran’s nuclear program as a prerequisite for any lasting normalization of relations. No significant economic concessions should be granted without verifiable and binding guarantees on this specific issue.

This firm stance does not stem from gratuitous hostility toward the Iranian people, but from a legitimate demand directed at a regime whose track record of honoring international commitments remains, at best, mixed.

This vigilance must extend to Tehran’s regional alliances

The West must also closely monitor the ties between Iran and other authoritarian regimes, particularly Russia, to which Tehran continues to supply military technologies used against Ukraine. Any normalization with Iran must take this regional and global dimension into account.

I repeat this emphatically: we cannot fully normalize relations with Iran as long as its drones continue to fuel the Russian war machine against Ukraine. Western consistency requires linking these two issues, not treating them separately.

A decision that now rests entirely with the Iranian regime

The ball is in Tehran’s court. Technically, nothing stands in the way of a direct, high-level meeting between Iranian and American negotiators, except for a deliberate political choice to maintain a formal distance. This choice comes at a cost: it slows down a process on which Iran’s economic stability and international credibility directly depend.

Every additional week of this diplomatic stalemate is a week in which the Iranian economy continues to suffer, frozen assets remain inaccessible, and international mistrust of the regime grows rather than subsides.

A window that won’t remain open indefinitely

There is no guarantee that Washington’s current willingness to negotiate—even indirectly—will last indefinitely if Tehran continues to refuse any substantial progress on the most sensitive issues, starting with the nuclear program.

I am addressing you directly one last time: time is not necessarily on your side. A U.S. administration can shift its priorities overnight, and this diplomatic window could close just as quickly as it opened.

A Precedent That Goes Beyond the Iranian Issue Alone

How this issue is resolved—or allowed to drag on—will have repercussions far beyond the Persian Gulf alone. It will send a signal to other authoritarian regimes, including North Korea and Russia, about the West’s ability to maintain a firm stance against counterparts who systematically favor calculated delay and constant mediation over direct and responsible dialogue.

A U.S. failure to establish meaningful direct contact with Tehran could be interpreted, in both Beijing and Pyongyang, as a sign of structural weakness in the West’s doctrine of conditional firmness.

Maintaining Consistency in the Face of All Hostile Regimes

This is why the Iranian issue—though seemingly isolated—deserves as much sustained attention as the negotiations over Ukraine or tensions with North Korea: in its own way, it tests the West’s overall credibility in the face of the entire authoritarian axis.

I remain convinced that every regional issue, however distinct it may seem, is part of the same broader test of Western credibility. Iran, Russia, North Korea: three issues, a single fundamental question—that of our collective steadfastness.

Stepping Out of the Shadows to Build Lasting Trust

That is why I am addressing you directly, Iranian leaders: finally agree to this face-to-face meeting that you have been avoiding for months. This gesture alone will not resolve all disputes, but it would send a strong signal of good faith that indirect mediation, however useful it may be, can never fully replace.

Your people deserve better than diplomacy conducted perpetually from the shadows. They deserve leaders capable of facing each other head-on to shoulder the responsibilities and make the compromises necessary to bring your country out of the economic and diplomatic isolation into which decades of mutual mistrust have trapped it.

An Outstretched Hand, with Clear Conditions

The West, despite its legitimate reservations, has demonstrated its willingness to negotiate—even indirectly—on issues as sensitive as the Strait of Hormuz or frozen assets. It is now up to Tehran to accept this outstretched hand rather than continue to hide behind intermediaries.

I conclude this open letter with cautious hope: that this refusal to engage in direct dialogue is merely a temporary stance, dictated by the period of national mourning, and not a structural choice intended to last indefinitely.

A Test for Iran’s New Generation of Leaders

The transition period following the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei paradoxically offers a unique opportunity for a new generation of Iranian leaders to redefine their relationship with the world. Agreeing to direct dialogue with Washington could mark a symbolic break with decades of behind-the-scenes diplomacy.

Conversely, persisting in the refusal of direct contact would send a worrying signal of continuity—that of a regime incapable of reinventing itself even in the face of an economic and diplomatic opportunity as rare as the one currently presenting itself.

A pivotal moment that calls for courage, not excessive caution

History will judge harshly those who, out of an excess of protocol-driven caution, let slip a diplomatic window as rare as the one opened by this memorandum of understanding signed in June 2026.

I firmly believe that diplomatic courage—the courage to accept uncomfortable face-to-face encounters—is always preferable to perpetual caution, which, historically, has never resolved any lasting conflict between nations.

A Final Call for Clarity

This open letter does not seek to dictate Iranian foreign policy, but it expresses a simple and sincere conviction: Tehran’s persistent refusal to agree to a direct meeting with Washington is slowing down a process for which your own people are paying the economic and social price. Indirect diplomacy has its merits, but it can never replace the clarity of a direct dialogue between responsible decision-makers.

A Shared Responsibility for the Future

The West will continue to demand firmness and verification on the nuclear issue, while remaining open to any sincere diplomatic progress. The responsibility for turning this fragile window of opportunity into a lasting outcome now lies, in large part, in the hands of Tehran itself.

I conclude this letter with the conviction that history never forgives leaders who choose formal caution over diplomatic courage when a real window of opportunity for progress presents itself.

Never Confuse Technical Progress with Political Trust

It would be dangerous for the West to confuse the technical advances made in Doha with a genuine restoration of political trust between Washington and Tehran. These two dimensions remain, for the time being, largely separate, and it is precisely this separation that the refusal to hold direct talks highlights.

Western vigilance must remain intact, regardless of any progress announced regarding the Strait of Hormuz or frozen assets, as long as no direct high-level contact has made it possible to verify the genuine sincerity of Iran’s intentions.

A conclusion that calls for patient firmness

Patient firmness—neither naive nor hasty—remains the only credible stance for the West in the face of a regime that, to date, has never fully demonstrated its willingness to engage in direct and transparent dialogue.

I conclude this open letter with the certainty that Western patience has its limits, and that Tehran would do well not to test them indefinitely by continuing to hide behind mediators, however competent they may be.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist