US pressure on Iran could harden its negotiating stance — China Daily

Lead

An editorial published by the Chinese state newspaper China Daily argues that the United States, as the initiator of the conflict with Iran, must take responsibility for ending it, and that Washington's attempts to force Tehran to make concessions could harden Iran's negotiating stance. The commentary, carried by Russia's TASS news agency, comes at a moment when the two countries have reportedly engaged in talks in Islamabad, though the prospects for peace remain uncertain.

Coverage Comparison

The China Daily editorial, as relayed by TASS, frames the current US-Iran standoff as having reached a "critical juncture," with negotiations in Islamabad offering a "glimmer of hope" for resolution. However, the paper cautions that the possibility of peace is tenuous, as both sides harbor deep-seated mistrust and have competing interests. The editorial emphasizes that the US, as the initiator of the conflict, must shoulder responsibility for ending it, and that Washington should demonstrate a willingness to negotiate in good faith.

In a separate TASS report, Alfred de Zayas, a former UN independent expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, directly blamed the US for the failure of the Islamabad talks. In a post on X, de Zayas wrote that the US "seldom negotiates in good faith, practices perfidy, and insists in making maximalist demands," adding that Washington is not interested in quid pro quo but only in imparting commands.

Both reports originate from TASS, a Russian state news agency, and reflect perspectives critical of US actions. The China Daily editorial is presented as an opinion piece, while de Zayas's comments are attributed to him personally. Neither report includes direct responses from US or Iranian officials.

Key Claims

• The US and Iran conflict has reached a critical juncture, with negotiations in Islamabad offering a glimmer of hope for resolution, according to the China Daily editorial as reported by TASS.
• The Iranian side has told the media that it will continue to talk with the US, per the same editorial.
• The US withdrew from the nuclear deal, imposed maximum pressure on Iran, and launched strikes against Iran during negotiations, as stated in the China Daily editorial.
• The US and Israel launched a large-scale operation against Iran on February 28, according to the editorial's timeline.
• The US announced a two-week ceasefire with Iran on April 7, and talks were held in Islamabad on April 11, as reported by TASS.
• Alfred de Zayas, a former UN expert, said the US is to blame for the failure of the Islamabad talks, and that the US seldom negotiates in good faith, practices perfidy, and makes maximalist demands.
• De Zayas also claimed that the US and Israel break almost all agreements they enter into, or reinterpret them unilaterally to obtain advantages the other side never consented to.

Perspectives

The China Daily editorial, as presented by TASS, offers a critical view of US policy, arguing that Washington's actions—including withdrawal from the nuclear deal, imposition of maximum pressure, and military strikes during negotiations—have undermined trust and hardened Iran's stance. The editorial urges the US to abandon its approach of negotiating while maintaining a blockade and to demonstrate genuine commitment to dialogue.

Alfred de Zayas's comments, also carried by TASS, go further, accusing the US of bad-faith negotiation tactics and unilateral reinterpretation of agreements. His remarks reflect a broader skepticism among some international observers about US reliability in diplomatic engagements.

Neither report includes perspectives from US or Iranian officials, nor does it provide independent verification of the events described. The claims about specific dates and military operations are attributed solely to the China Daily editorial and have not been corroborated by other sources in this coverage.

As of this writing, there has been no official confirmation from Washington or Tehran regarding the status of the Islamabad talks or the ceasefire. The situation remains fluid, and the accuracy of the timeline presented in the editorial has not been independently established.