A few key points about the latest status of negotiations between #Iran and #America, that show the window for diplomacy is closing. I reiterate that the narrative presented by some US media is incomplete.👇

The Reuters report is false and its goal is to control the price of oil. no negotiations are underway. #Iran's position remains unchanged: the U.S. must fulfill the stipulated conditions in a single step so that the Strait of #Hormuz can be opened under Iranian control. Period.

Today, @drpezeshkian was the voice not only of the Iranian nation but of all the oppressed and freedom-seekers across the globe against American-Israeli oppression and crimes. By displaying these images, the #Iran's president exposed the terrorist nature of #Trump and #Netanyahu.

#Iran’s new diplomacy will not return to the past. We will compel the United States to respect the rights of the Iranian nation and comply with the stipulated conditions; otherwise, the Strait of #Hormuz will not be opened. Enough talk—take action.

Pay no heed to their narrative. There has been no change in Tehran’s position & #Hormuz will not be opened until the US meets #Iran’s preconditions. Furthermore, Araghchi-Witkoff meeting firstly at the US own pleading & secondly with the aim of clearly conveying Tehran’s demands.

Contrary to some reports regarding a proposal from Tehran to reopen the Strait of #Hormuz for 7 days—conditioned on a reduction of US military pressure—any such decision by #Iran is false. Any decision for this, is contingent solely upon the US meeting 7 preconditions set by Iran

#Iran has communicated seven conditions to the US government for the commencement of any talks. Tehran’s message is clear and unambiguous: if Washington wishes to extricate itself from the predicament of its own making it has no choice but to accept Iran’s rights and conditions.

Secretary of #Iran's SNSC, @ir_rezaee to AlJazeera: It is in US interest to accept our terms for ending the war. We are aware of the US military's vulnerabilities. We have not altered our nuclear doctrine, though we cannot predict what the future holds.

هل ما زالت المؤسسات الدولية قادرة على حماية حقوق الشعب الفلسطيني؟ المحلل السياسي محمد قادري #فلسطين #الخلاصة

"رسائل مناورة فدائيو إيران تؤكد أن الشعب الإيراني موحد ومنسجم في مواجهة العدوان والحصار" المحلل السياسي محمد قادري لـ #الميادين #إيران #الولايات_المتحدة

"يعتبر الشعب الإيراني نفسه مُرسَلًا للدفاع عن جبهة المـ\قاومة ويعلن بقوة استعداده لقتال العدو الأميركي والصهيوني" المحلل السياسي محمد قادري لـ #الميادين #إيران #الولايات_المتحدة

البث المباشر لقناة #الميادين nitter.net/i/broadcasts/1PJqrNZzn…

#Iran has no plans for talks under current circumstances. As emphasized in the conditions announced to the US, there will be no talks & the Strait of #Hormuz will not be reopened until the war on all fronts ends, the blockade is lifted & Iran's financial resources are released.

😂😂😂 Oh really? Hadn't you destroyed Iran?

An Open Letter to @LockheedMartin To James D. Taiclet, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and to the Board of Directors. I have just returned from Lamerd, a city of thirty thousand in Iran's Fars province. On 28 February 2026, the opening day of the American and Israeli war on Iran, United States forces fired Precision Strike Missiles built by your corporation into its residential streets, its school and its sports hall. Twenty-one civilians were killed. More than one hundred and seventy were wounded — among them children who will live the rest of their lives without sight, without limbs, or without the use of their spines. The youngest of the dead was Avina Barzegar. She was two. Her photograph is taped above the fragment holes in her family's steel door. I have stood in front of it. Within a month, your corporation signed an agreement to quadruple production of the weapon that did this, reported at some $8.4 billion. I write because the legal consequences of having done so knowingly are more serious than your officers appear to have been advised. What occurred at Lamerd was a war crime. There was no military objective. Under the customary rule reflected in Article 52(2) of Additional Protocol, an object may be attacked only where it effectively contributes to military action and its destruction offers a definite military advantage. In six months, Central Command has identified no such object in Lamerd. It first claimed no American strike occurred within thirty miles of the city. When video made that untenable, it claimed the munition was an Iranian cruise missile, a claim rejected independently by Janes, McKenzie Intelligence, The New York Times and BBC Verify, each identifying the silhouette, the airburst and the fragmentation pattern of one weapon in that theatre. Yours. A denial is not a justification. Where an attacker answers civilian deaths by denying the attack rather than defending the target, it forecloses every defence the law makes available to it. The means were indiscriminate. The PrSM detonates fifteen to twenty metres above ground and disperses tens of thousands of tungsten fragments across a wide area. Investigators counted thousands of fragment impacts along a single 150-metre stretch of one residential street. The casualty pattern is not evidence of a strike gone wrong. It is evidence of the weapon working exactly as designed, in a place where its design guaranteed the result. And the strikes were successive. The first detonated above a sports hall where a girls' volleyball team was training. People ran into the open. The second fell on them. Then a third, then a fourth. Whatever might be argued about the first, nothing explains the rest except a decision taken with knowledge of what the first had just done. A city is not a proving ground. The PrSM had never been used in combat before that day. Lamerd was its debut, and Central Command's commander publicly praised that debut within days. It is sometimes assumed that validating a weapon under operational conditions is a military benefit that can be weighed in the balance. It cannot. The advantage the law requires must be "definite", "concrete and direct" — language chosen precisely to exclude benefits that are speculative, generalised or deferred. Performance data accrues to a production line, not to an attack. It belongs to no part of the balance a commander is permitted to strike. If the rationale was to observe the weapon's effects under live conditions, the civilians of Lamerd were not incidental to the object of the attack. They were the medium on which effectiveness was measured. The contract was made with knowledge. Complicity does not require sharing the perpetrator's purpose. It requires assistance having a substantial effect, furnished with knowledge. That is the standard on which the Hamburg court convicted the suppliers of Zyklon B in 1946; on which the Netherlands convicted Frans van Anraat for supplying chemical precursors to Iraq, holding expressly that the lawful commercial form of the transaction gave him no shelter; and which the French Cour de cassation confirmed reaches corporations in Lafarge. Your original contracts predate Lamerd. The expansion does not. By the time it was signed, the forensic record was public, the official account had collapsed twice, and CENTCOM had itself identified the operation as the weapon's combat debut. A prime contractor does not learn of its munition's first combat use from the newspapers. The expansion was not made in ignorance of how the weapon performed at Lamerd. It was made because of it. Your counsel will know that the corporation is not the principal exposure. Nuremberg did not try I.G. Farben or Krupp; it tried the men who ran them. Van Anraat went to prison as an individual. Officers who authorise continued manufacture and transfer after notice do so in their own names, in a world where Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain, Sweden and others exercise universal jurisdiction over grave breaches. That exposure does not lapse, and it travels. Accordingly: rescind the expansion agreement; suspend production and transfer pending an independent forensic investigation; preserve and disclose the performance data you hold on the Lamerd employment, because it is evidence; and cooperate with any prosecuting authority that opens a file. The answer that these are matters for the government and not the contractor was made at Nuremberg and failed there. A company that builds the weapon, receives the data on what it did to a city of thirty thousand, and then contracts to build four times as many is not a bystander to the decision. Do not repeat the claim that the matter is still under investigation. This is a government that tells its public it can read a name tag from orbit. It closed the Lamerd file in days, by denial, without answering a single question put to it. It has known since the morning of 28 February. It has decided the truth is inconvenient. Your corporation is now being asked whether it has decided the same. Avina Barzegar was two years old.

Under the agreement between #Iran and #Oman, Iran controls 100% of the inbound (northern) route to the Strait of #Hormuz and 25% of the outbound (southern) route.

#Iran's conditions for opening the #Hormuz, include: an end to the war on all fronts, the lifting of the blockade, the release of a significant portion of frozen assets, the removal of sanctions, acceptance of Iran's control over the Strait, recognition of nuclear rights...

"شعوب المنطقة ليست عدوة لـ #إيران، بل الجانب الأميركي هو الذي يوجد الفرقة في المنطقة، والعدو الأكبر هو أميركا و"إسرائيل" المحلل السياسي محمد قادري #الخلاصة #الولايات_المتحدة

"جبهة المقاومة بتنسيق وانسجام كامل أمام العدو الأميركي الصهيوني تقوم بالمقاومة والصمود، وتضيف إنجازات كبيرة واستراتيجية" المحلل السياسي محمد قادري #الخلاصة #إيران #الولايات_المتحدة

The #Iran-Oman agreement—the details of which to be shared with other #PersianGulf states in Muscat on Monday—does not signify the reopening of the Strait of #Hormuz. Iran has outlined 7 conditions to the US for reopening the strait & it will remain closed until those are met.