Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Friday that the United States was preventing progress toward a peace agreement by combining negotiations with military and economic pressure, offering Tehran’s clearest recent explanation for why efforts to end the conflict remain stalled.

Araghchi made the remarks on the sidelines of a Shanghai Cooperation Organization foreign ministers’ meeting in Kyrgyzstan. According to reporting based on his comments to Iran’s Tasnim News Agency, he said Iran had no fundamental objection to mediation but would not accept negotiations conducted under threats or demands that Tehran viewed as coercive.

The Iranian foreign minister said consultations with Russia and China were continuing and that Tehran remained in regular communication with both governments. He also identified the protection of Iranian interests in the Strait of Hormuz as a central principle, signaling that control, access and security in the strategic waterway remain closely connected to any broader political settlement.

Washington has presented a substantially different account of the diplomatic breakdown. In a July 23 interview published by the U.S. State Department, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Iranian officials had repeatedly reached out seeking an agreement but had either reversed their position or failed to comply with previous arrangements.

Rubio argued that continued American pressure was intended to convince Tehran that delaying an agreement would carry increasing military and economic costs. His remarks reflected the administration’s view that force is strengthening the U.S. negotiating position rather than obstructing diplomacy.

President Donald Trump confirmed on July 24 that communication with Iran was continuing. Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump said Iranian representatives appeared more serious than they had been previously, but he stopped short of predicting a breakthrough. He said the existence of talks did not mean the two sides would ultimately reach an agreement.

The statements from Trump and Araghchi indicate that diplomatic contacts have not been severed. They also demonstrate that the two governments do not agree on the basic conditions under which negotiations can succeed. Tehran is demanding relief from what it describes as pressure and threats, while Washington maintains that sustained pressure is necessary to secure Iranian compliance.

Araghchi did not publicly provide a detailed list of U.S. positions that Iran considered unacceptable in the remarks reported Friday. His emphasis, however, was on the broader American strategy: military operations, warnings of further escalation and economic measures proceeding alongside negotiations. Iranian officials have repeatedly argued that talks conducted under those conditions cannot be treated as negotiations between equal parties.

The Trump administration has rejected that characterization. U.S. officials say recent military operations are directed at Iranian capabilities used to threaten commercial vessels and American interests in the region. Washington has also accused Tehran of using negotiations to delay decisions while continuing attacks or preparing new military responses.

The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the most consequential points of disagreement. The narrow passage connects Persian Gulf energy producers with global markets and carries a significant share of internationally traded oil. Disruption to shipping can quickly affect energy prices, insurance costs, transportation routes and expectations for inflation in the United States.

Iran’s insistence that its interests in the strait must be protected suggests that maritime access will be part of any viable settlement. The United States, however, has framed freedom of navigation as a nonnegotiable international interest and has used military force against Iranian naval, missile, drone and coastal assets that it says threaten commercial traffic.

That disagreement makes the maritime conflict more than a secondary military issue. It is tied to the broader question of whether Iran can exert strategic leverage over shipping during negotiations and whether Washington can guarantee unrestricted passage without reaching a wider political accommodation with Tehran.

Iran’s reference to continuing consultations with Russia and China also highlights the increasingly international character of the diplomacy. Both countries maintain important political and economic relationships with Tehran and hold permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council. Their involvement could help transmit proposals, but it may also complicate U.S. efforts to isolate Iran or define the negotiating framework on Washington’s terms.

No new formal mediation structure was announced alongside Araghchi’s comments. His remarks therefore appeared intended partly to demonstrate that Tehran retains diplomatic options and is not dependent on a single channel controlled by the United States or its regional partners.

For Washington, the immediate challenge is to determine whether the continuing contacts can produce concrete measures while combat operations remain underway. Possible indicators of progress would include a temporary reduction in attacks, guarantees for commercial shipping, a mutually recognized mediation channel and agreement on the sequence of military, nuclear, economic and sanctions-related discussions.

Without such steps, both sides may continue describing themselves as open to diplomacy while blaming the other for the absence of results. That dynamic creates a risk that negotiations become another instrument of wartime messaging rather than a process capable of ending the conflict.

The consequences extend beyond Iran and the United States. American personnel are stationed across the Middle East, and several regional governments host U.S. military facilities. Continued escalation increases the danger of additional attacks on those installations, retaliatory strikes and unintended confrontation involving countries that are not formal parties to the negotiations.

The conflict also carries domestic implications for the Trump administration. Higher oil and gasoline prices can affect American consumers, financial markets and inflation expectations. Prolonged military operations could also intensify congressional debate over presidential war powers, the cost of the campaign and the administration’s strategy for ending hostilities.

Araghchi’s statement does not close the door on negotiations. Instead, it sets out Tehran’s public argument that mediation can work only if Washington changes its methods. Trump and Rubio, meanwhile, are signaling that the United States sees no reason to reduce pressure before Iran accepts terms that can be enforced.

The competing positions leave the peace process in a fragile state: active enough for both sides to acknowledge ongoing communication, but not sufficiently developed to halt the fighting. Unless Washington and Tehran agree on what negotiations are supposed to achieve and what actions must stop while they proceed, the diplomatic channel is unlikely to provide near-term protection against further escalation.