· 90 comments · Save ·
News & Current Events Apr 20, 2026 at 3:28 PM

Tehran Says 'No Decision Yet' on Joining Peace Talks as Iranian President Emphasizes Distrust of Washington

Posted by Editor_91

Tehran Says 'No Decision Yet' on Joining Peace Talks as Iranian President Emphasizes Distrust of Washington
TIME
Tehran Says 'No Decision Yet' on Joining Peace Talks as Iranian President Emphasizes Distrust of Washington
The fragile cease-fire, set to expire this week, hangs in the balance as Iran has threatened to retaliate after the U.S. seized an Iranian cargo ship.
🚩 Report this post

90 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
afreshstart2015 Apr 20, 2026 +156
Problem with the US is Anyone that does a deal with one president The next president can just rip it up Even Britain and other allies can't trust the US leadership anymore  The US has lost all credibility on the world stage
156
Mitchverr Apr 20, 2026 +114
Cant even trust THIS president to not rip it up. How many times has Trump ripped up agreements or threatened to do so with the UK alone over the last 16 months?
114
National-Charity-435 Apr 20, 2026 +67
\-Rips up NAFTA \-Signs USMCA \-Rips up USMCA and questions the intelligence of the one who signed it The actions of one president
67
EQBallzz Apr 21, 2026 +6
More like the actions of 30% of America that are morons and elected this corrupt imbecile who lies like he breathes. Everyone knew this dope didn't know shit except MAGA.
6
Wayofchinchilla Apr 21, 2026 +3
It's even more ridiculous that those 30% get to dictate how this country is run. If these people are that stupid the next president should try to get them to self Deport I hear the Subways in Moscow are much nicer than New York.
3
EQBallzz Apr 21, 2026 +2
Yep. And they can take Tucker with them since he loves it so much. Now he's "speaking out" against the monster he helped to create because it's convenient. What a fraud. Just like all the other frauds on Fox.
2
Mitchverr Apr 21, 2026 +4
actions of \~60-66% of the US population is more accurate. 1/3rd voted trump. 1/3rd didnt care enough to vote and thus, were okay with this outcome being a reality. so 2/3rds of Americans.
4
EQBallzz Apr 21, 2026 +1
Well not all of the population are eligible voters so not sure if it's 2/3s but your point is well taken. In voting terms, it was much closer, but the electoral college is just fucked and needs to be eliminated. Also, to your point, more people need to vote.
1
Mitchverr Apr 21, 2026 +2
Only \~64% of those eligible to vote turned out to vote (so 36% didnt vote). 31% of those able to vote, votes for Trump. so 36%, plus 31%, its 67% either were okay with Trump winning or directly voted for him.
2
JG98 Apr 21, 2026 +2
You forgot the part where he called CUSMA the greatest trade deal ever.
2
EQBallzz Apr 20, 2026 +29
Trump ripped up his own trade agreement with Canada that HE put in place in his first term. Then ripped up the tariff agreement he made with them like 5 minutes before. The art of dementia.
29
LahmeKruecke Apr 20, 2026 +11
We don‘t need another president to see them rip it up. Trump already has an itch up his arse every night that he rips everything he signed the same night.
11
FigSideG Apr 20, 2026 +16
lol this was never a problem until an experienced narcissistic grifting conman lied his way into the White House. Trump can’t be trusted. He couldn’t be trusted to not rip up past agreements based on petty immature revenge. A guy who’s ghostwritten book is called Art Of The Deal has no idea what he’s doing and his only move is to threaten to blow up a country or civilization—that’s all he’s got.
16
SoCalThrowAway7 Apr 20, 2026 +5
Trump rips up his own agreements and pretends someone else made them lol. He’s so fucked our soft power for generations
5
alilhillbilly Apr 20, 2026 +1
That's why the next administration is going to have to have Nuremberg trials. Russia needs to be sanctioned HARDER and it needs to be made clear just how much control they have over Trump. Israel may need to be sanctioned for decades of funding Epstein and graping our children to control US politicians. And ultimately, members of the Trump inner circle may need to be deported or turned over to Iran for punishment as traitors.
1
PrairiePopsicle Apr 20, 2026
I think another part of the problem is the US press secretary saying, effectively, that they decided to just kill the leaders who don't say what they want to hear.
0
Mr_Doubtful Apr 20, 2026 +26
lol so it went from not going to they haven’t made a decision yet? Why is Iran so supportive of the US stock market?
26
ohst8buxcp7 Apr 20, 2026 +30
It should be fairly obvious at this point to anyone paying attention that the loss of leadership in Iran has resulted in several different groups with competing priorities and ideologies struggling for power. Their responses keep changing because the different groups can’t agree on what the appropriate response should be.
30
Easik Apr 20, 2026 +13
It's called mosaic military strategy and it's what happens when you kill all the people you would negotiate with in a normal scenario. The problem in this situation is that the most violent and vicious will likely rise to power, so even **IF** this administration is communicating with someone, it's extremely unlikely they hold the power to enforce the deal within Iran.
13
CG-Shin Apr 20, 2026 +1
That’s also the reason why save passage through the strait can never be ensured without a deal or boots on ground (and that might even fail). It’s not even something “surprising” they told everyone they would do this and somehow nobody thought they would, or won’t admit it at least
1
HarEr89 Apr 20, 2026
Yes, it's funny. They opened Hormuz for several hours on Friday and the oil price plunged. For the Iranian regime it made zero sense.
0
BoppityBop2 Apr 20, 2026 +12
It makes sense they need to show they are interested and then let the US make a decision that gives them justification to close it back up. 
12
Nightsong Apr 20, 2026 +11
It makes total sense. Iran opening the Strait, even for a few hours, makes them look like the reasonable adult in the room and that they are willing to negotiate. Trump is too stupid to realize an olive branch offer which is why the Strait was closed again.
11
Wambo74 Apr 20, 2026 +17
Tic toc. "Super Tuesday" is the word over there.
17
mesmerooo Apr 20, 2026 +3
*Taco Tuesday
3
DABOSSROSS9 Apr 20, 2026 +4
How so?
4
Wolfgirl90 Apr 20, 2026 +4
For a while now, Trump has been in this habit of backing down from escalations on a Tuesday or Wednesday after having escalated matters the previous week, particularly on a Thursday or Friday. Announce something crazy before the weekend: stocks fall. Announce that he's backing down or giving relief mid-week: stocks skyrocket. His intent behind this has been rather transparent. The most egregious example of this was when he announced his "Liberation Day" tariffs last year. This happened on a Thursday and markets went into chaos. The following Wednesday, right before markets opened, he posted on Truth Social that now was a great time to buy. Four hours later, he paused the tariff hike. It's been happening with Iran, too. Announce issues with negotiations on Friday, make a threat Monday, back down on Tuesday.
4
DJ_Dinkelweckerl Apr 20, 2026 +2
I don't understand why the markets are still reacting this sensitively. It should be known by now that most things that are being said are empty words in an attempt to intimidate. The market is being abused yet it's still taking everything for granted. Maybe someone with more knowledge can enlighten me.
2
BluePizzaPill Apr 20, 2026 +1
Because others are buying/selling.
1
mesmerooo Apr 20, 2026 +2
on Tuesdays, Taco does a taco lately
2
Spartanlegion117 Apr 20, 2026 +14
Interesting way to say you have no control over the IRGC so you know anything you'd agree to will be out the window a few hours after you agree to it.
14
Ombric_Shalazar Apr 20, 2026 +6
decapitation strike results in headless chicken running around causing chaos whoever could have foreseen this?
6
ComfortableBus7184 Apr 20, 2026 +3
Nailed it. Listnook is in denial.
3
PM_THE_REAPER Apr 20, 2026 +9
Even allies distrust the USA, so no surprise there.
9
MoleWhackSupreme Apr 20, 2026 +14
No one is exactly lining up to trust Iran either tbh
14
rimshot99 Apr 20, 2026 +17
It's not quite the same. The US were in talks with Iran in Muscat the summer of 2025 and in the middle of the talks the US bombed Iran. Not exactly good faith negotiations. Then the US were in talks with Iran in Geneva in Feb 2026 and in the middle of the talks the US bombed Iran. Now the US want to have talks again. I don't think its so much that the Iranians distrust the US, but they accept the evidence that the US is not trustworthy.
17
SporksInjected Apr 20, 2026 -11
There was an important nuclear deal that ended and triggered the response from Israel and the USA in 2025
-11
dinodong54321 Apr 20, 2026 +11
Which deal exactly ended in 2025 that led to the strikes in June 2025? Please cite credible sources.
11
SporksInjected Apr 20, 2026 -8
I slightly misworded this. There were strikes because of the JCPOA by Israel but the deal ended in October of 2025 when Iran formally exited. I can tell btw that you haven’t ever investigated this for yourself. > On 12 June 2025, the IAEA board of governors passed a resolution,[i] drafted by the US, UK, France and Germany, that declared that Iran was non-compliant with its nuclear obligations for the first time since September 2005.[69][70] IAEA director general Rafael Grossi stated in an interview that the IAEA did "not have any proof of a systematic effort to move into a nuclear weapon",[126][127] on the other hand, in his statement to the board of governors on 9 June he stated that "Unless and until Iran assists the agency in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful".[128] As you know, the next day was the beginning of the Twelve Days War. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3v6w2qr12o https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/iaea-chief-returning-iranian-sites-is-top-priority-2025-06-25/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal
-8
dinodong54321 Apr 20, 2026 +12
Which deal ended in October of 2025? Are you confusing the Iran nuclear deal and the NPT?
12
SporksInjected Apr 20, 2026 -8
Do you have a web scrape or a fetch tool?
-8
dinodong54321 Apr 20, 2026 +8
Do you have reading comprehension? Willing to bet that my CV would make you look pretty bad. Do you want to publish yours here along with me so we can let the readers figure out who has “done the research”?
8
[deleted] Apr 20, 2026
[deleted]
0
SporksInjected Apr 20, 2026 +2
That’s what I thought too until I looked it up. The JCPOA didn’t end until October 18 2025 and sanction relief from the other participants were still in place in 2025. Iran began violating the agreement as early as 2016 but remediated things. By 2019 they were announcing enrichment beyond the agreement and having the IAEA confirm.
2
distinctidiot Apr 20, 2026 +7
I hate to need to defend Iran, but in this rare case they were neither the ones to rip up Obama's nuclear deal, nor were they the ones to attack when negotiations between the two sides were ongoing, it's hard not to see why Iran might want guarantees at this point especially when the orange maniac is in office.
7
[deleted] Apr 20, 2026 -2
[deleted]
-2
dinodong54321 Apr 20, 2026 +8
What led Iran to kick out the IAEA inspectors?
8
[deleted] Apr 20, 2026 -1
[deleted]
-1
dinodong54321 Apr 20, 2026 +7
When in your timeline did Iran kick out the IAEA inspectors? Was it before the JCPOA? After the U.S. pulled out? Let’s be intellectually honest here.
7
distinctidiot Apr 20, 2026 +1
Main conflicts with the IAEA(this was not complete restriction but malicious compliance) arised after USA's unilateral  withdrawal from the nuclear deal in 2018.
1
UnusualFunction7567 Apr 20, 2026 -3
Obama’s deal would not have prevented a nuclear Iran.  It would have delayed it, however. While we don’t know the extent of the damage the US has done to Iran’s program, it’s much likely a lot more expensive and will be harder to reignite after the massive bombing. Additionally, what Trump is doing (at least as of yet), has not released billions of Iranian assets that will allow them to buy more equipment than produce nuclear material, as Obama’s deal did. Therefore, an argument can be made that Trump’s actions, at this advanced stage in Iranian nuclear development, was more effective than the old deal would have been.
-3
dinodong54321 Apr 20, 2026 +9
How and why did Iran get to this advanced stage? They were limited to 3.67% under the nuclear deal. Now they have hundreds of kilograms of 60% enriched uranium. It’s difficult to take your points seriously when you conveniently leave out the fact that Iran started enriching to such high levels when the U.S. unilaterally pulled out of the deal. Note that the other 5 signatories were against this.
9
UnusualFunction7567 Apr 20, 2026 -3
They were still allowed to design and develop centrifuges.  It sure didn’t help that Obama released billions of frozen assets back to their government after signing the agreement.    Even under the older deal, they would have almost no breakout time by the time the deal reached its current point.   Do you really think he would want any deal in place that would, in time, allow a nuclear Iran?   He pulled out of the deal because it relieved sanctions on them, allowing billions to flow in, and had no guarantees that Iran would never had a nuclear weapon.   They were biding their time. Why stay in a deal which still gave the possibility of getting a nuclear weapon, awash with newfound money from relieved sanctions, and the US as a peaceful observer?   C’mon, man!  You know that wasn’t going to fly!   They needed to be hit, and hit hard to destroy their capability to produce nuclear weapons and deliver them on a missile.   The strikes began putting that in motion.  Trump has really set them back years, if not decades.
-3
dinodong54321 Apr 20, 2026 +7
Your last statement is a very bold claim that needs to be substantiated by *credible* sources. It’s difficult to take it seriously otherwise. What’s the breakout time now btw? They have 60% enriched uranium that is at best, buried. Before the unilateral pullout from the JCPOA, they were stuck at 3.67%. You seem to have difficulty acknowledging these inconvenient facts.
7
UnusualFunction7567 Apr 20, 2026 -2
I think you’re having trouble seeing how much money they’d get from sanctions being eased with the previous deal.   They guaranteed a peaceful US, that would not interfere.  As soon as the deal was gone, they’d run, not walk to where they could easily produce a nuke. While they didn’t have to worry about US or Israeli interference, didn’t have to harden their labs, didn’t have to hide their material, could operate in the open, advance their centrifuge design because the US had signed a deal — peaceful coexistence. When not under that deal, they’d run have sanctions, harder to get resources, have to shuffle things around, hide things, keep them separate.   All of that adds time to allow them to build up.   Are you not seeing this?
-2
dinodong54321 Apr 20, 2026 +4
Why is sanctions relief for Iran a bad thing? Last I checked, they were going to buy a lot of civilian airliners from Boeing. That sounds like a great way to increase employment numbers. A market of 90 million people is something I’m keen on seeing join the global economy ASAP. If Iran is receiving money for selling goods or providing services, then what is the problem exactly?
4
UnusualFunction7567 Apr 20, 2026 -2
Iran uses money to fund its pet terrorist group, Hezbollah.    I really don’t think Boeing or the rest of the world would like the blood of Hezbollah’s victims on their hands. I’m sure Ukraine is glad they haven’t been getting a huge influx of money to make more Shaheed drones to rain down on their cities.   I’m sure they’d prefer to keep those 90 million out of the global market. Oh, yes, let’s make the country that shouts “Death to America” even richer while it plans to bring death to so many people! Dude, seriously.
-2
Assumption-Putrid Apr 20, 2026 -1
A couple years ago USA was a trusted ally of many nations. Iran was untrustworthy. Now both are untrustworthy. What changed?
-1
MoleWhackSupreme Apr 20, 2026 +1
The total idiot the US elected president twice changed of course!
1
Wolfgirl90 Apr 20, 2026 +1
Trump, honestly. The man is incapable of understanding compromise and cooperation. He's a narcissist that only sees the world in black and white: winners and losers. He thinks that every relationship must be a transaction that can only ever benefit him. If the other side is also benefitting, it is a bad deal. This even includes deals that *he* made.
1
Quady_c95 Apr 20, 2026 -3
The U.S. is apparently LOL
-3
Preme2 Apr 20, 2026 -4
You don’t need trust when you have the weapons. Just give us a reason. Listnook still working to find this out.
-4
Quady_c95 Apr 20, 2026 +3
It’s been going swimmingly!
3
pixlplayer Apr 22, 2026 +1
Respect won by fear is a very fickle thing
1
OneNormalBloke Apr 20, 2026 +3
Each side measuring each others gonads to see who has the biggest.
3
copperblood Apr 20, 2026 +3
It's really hilarious and fucked up that Iran which is considered a developing nation, is the only nation with big enough balls to call Trump out on his bullshit.
3
Sislar Apr 20, 2026 +1
But Trump said they had agreed to all his terms? I’m very confused.
1
t_ran_asuarus_rex Apr 20, 2026 +1
Have they decided to get the Board of Peace to mediate the talks? They are all about peace.
1
price1869 Apr 20, 2026 +1
Uh ... this guy in Utah distrusts the US Government. Can't blame them.
1
anacondatmz Apr 20, 2026 +1
Iran just doesn't understand the art of the deal. /s
1
giboauja Apr 21, 2026 +1
He's not the IRGC, So does anything he say really matter?
1
razordreamz Apr 22, 2026 +1
Trump learning he has no cards
1
[deleted] Apr 20, 2026 +2
[deleted]
2
ReaperReader Apr 20, 2026 +3
What you're missing is that the US President has dementia.
3
JesusWasMetro Apr 20, 2026 +2
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/22/us/politics/iran-israel-trump-netanyahu-mossad.html Mossad chief convinced Bibi that regime change was possible/probable from airstrikes alone. Internal dissent within Mossad, as well as deep skepticism from US intelligence. It's similar to the Iraq invasion: decision made, try to craft narrative with intelligence/assessments to support the decision, while ignoring the much larger mountain of evidence that undercuts what you've already decided to do.
2
nemoknows Apr 20, 2026 +2
Air strikes alone are never enough, this has been shown over and over since WW2 but the sociopaths in office and the assholes in front of the TV just can’t see past their big beautiful blasts. Bunch of Curtis LeMay bullshit.
2
TreatAffectionate453 Apr 20, 2026 +2
Per [NYT](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-war.html), US intelligence knew the outcomes of the invasion. However, the blame should go to Trump and his advisers. No one wanted to disagree with Trump and they refused to voice criticisms of his decisions. For example, General Caine told Trump that regime change was outside the scope of US capabilities. Trump responded that regime change would be up to Israel, then. Upon hearing that, Caine just pretended the issue was settled.
2
HoosierRed Apr 20, 2026 -1
As an American who is well off right now, I can't trust my own federal government to tell the truth. Can only really trust my state.
-1
Bitter_Procedure260 Apr 20, 2026 +1
If I had betrayed and killed the enemy leaders under the guise of peace talks (twice), I would also be hesitant to attend in-person meetings.
1
opinelmavric Apr 20, 2026 +1
The amount of damage done to the USs image over this weird war is insane.... basically all on behalf of Israel too....
1
Vv4nd Apr 20, 2026
Huh, so now there is literaly ONE thing that the iranian president and I can agree on. Weird times.
0
I3I2O Apr 20, 2026
The best way to beat the con is not to play!
0
HarEr89 Apr 20, 2026
Be prepared for SUPER TACO TUESDAY
0
fec2245 Apr 20, 2026 +1
Do you expect Trump to unilaterally lift the blockade or something?
1
WeirdcoolWilson Apr 20, 2026
The answer needs to be “No” until the US has a regime change
0
greenmachine11235 Apr 20, 2026
As if no enemies ever distrusted the people they were actively working to kill. 
0
nishitd Apr 20, 2026 -4
They'll agree eventually. They also need to do some showboating like Trump does, for domestic politics. Witkoff and Kushner wouldn't have flown to Islamabad otherwise.
-4
Ok-Vegetable-204 Apr 20, 2026
I'd normally agree especially considering how idiotic it would be to put all that effort into a ceasefire to immediately backtrack on it But the most important part of these negotiations is the Uranium part, if the US commits to a peace while the JCPOA is no longer in effect and Iran still holds the enriched Uranium that would be Trump's most moronic decision of all time.. And so far we've only had Trump's word on how well the negotiations are going and guess where that led us
0
Grand_Public Apr 20, 2026 -2
Because a certain numbskull thinks acting crazy and erratic will bring both parties together for a peace talk , because yeah everyone wants to be in peace talks with a looney who changes his mind every 30 minutes
-2
SGT_BlueJay Apr 20, 2026 -2
Americans don't trust Washington either!
-2
← Back to Board