Iran’s parliament has officially denied reports that its speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, resigned as head of the country’s negotiating team in indirect talks with the United States. The denial, issued on April 24, 2026, by the Iranian Islamic Parliament Media Office, came amid swirling speculation about internal divisions within Iran’s leadership over the ongoing diplomatic engagement. According to the statement carried by the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), Ghalibaf remains actively involved in his duties and continues to participate in the negotiation process.
The clarification followed claims circulating in some media outlets that Ghalibaf had stepped down due to disagreements over the direction of the talks, particularly regarding whether the focus should remain on nuclear issues or shift toward ending hostilities and securing broader concessions from the U.S. These rumors were described by parliamentary officials as deliberate attempts to mislead the public and create false perceptions of discord between Iran’s legislative, executive, and military institutions.
In a related development, Iran’s Foreign Ministry emphasized on April 23 that the current round of indirect talks, held in Islamabad, Pakistan, fundamentally differs from previous negotiations. A department spokesperson stated that unlike past discussions which occurred during peacetime and centered on Iran’s nuclear program, the current dialogue takes place within the framework of a temporary ceasefire. As such, the primary objective is not nuclear restrictions but achieving a lasting cessation of war, securing war reparations, resolving disputes over the Strait of Hormuz, lifting sanctions comprehensively, and obtaining guarantees against future aggression from the U.S. And Israel.
The spokesperson further noted that Ghalibaf, a veteran of the Iran-Iraq War with extensive leadership experience across multiple governmental sectors, enjoys broad trust among Iran’s diverse political factions. His collaboration with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was described as a “wise and appropriate” arrangement, combining parliamentary authority with diplomatic expertise to strengthen Iran’s position in negotiations. This assessment was echoed by senior figures from Iran’s legislative, executive, judicial, and military branches, including President Masoud Pezeshkian and leaders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), who jointly issued statements affirming national unity behind the negotiation team.
Analysts suggest that the emphasis on ending active conflict reflects a strategic shift in Iran’s foreign policy priorities amid regional instability. By framing the talks around war termination rather than nuclear concessions, Tehran appears to be leveraging its current battlefield or deterrent position to seek comprehensive security guarantees and economic relief. The inclusion of issues such as compensation for war damages and freedom of navigation in critical maritime channels underscores a broader agenda aimed at addressing long-standing grievances beyond the nuclear file.
Despite the denial of Ghalibaf’s resignation, questions persist about the durability of Iran’s internal consensus as negotiations proceed. While official statements stress unity, some observers point to past instances where hardline and moderate factions have differed on the pace and scope of engagement with Western powers. However, no credible evidence has emerged to substantiate claims of a significant rift at this stage, and all major state institutions continue to publicly back the negotiation effort.
The talks remain ongoing, with no fixed timeline for conclusion. Both sides have indicated a willingness to continue discussions, though progress depends on mutual concessions and the maintenance of the current ceasefire arrangement. International mediators, including representatives from Oman and other regional actors, continue to facilitate communication between Washington and Tehran through indirect channels.
For readers seeking updates on this evolving diplomatic situation, official statements from Iran’s Foreign Ministry and parliamentary media office provide the most reliable sources of information. Similarly, verified reports from international news agencies such as IRNA and coverage by respected global outlets offer balanced perspectives on the negotiations.
As developments unfold, World Today Journal will continue to monitor verified sources for accurate, timely reporting on Iran-U.S. Talks and their implications for regional stability and global nonproliferation efforts.
Stay informed. Share your thoughts in the comments below, and aid spread awareness by sharing this article with others interested in international affairs.