Donald Trump said Friday that US negotiators are now dealing with “the people who are in charge” in Iran, even as Tehran continues to deny any direct engagement with American officials.
The remark — delivered as fresh diplomacy unfolds in Islamabad — highlights a widening disconnect between Washington’s claims of progress and Iran’s public stance.
Trump’s statement comes as US envoy Steve Witkoff and adviser Jared Kushner travel to Pakistan for talks expected to be mediated by Islamabad. At the same time, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has arrived in the Pakistani capital as part of a regional tour that includes Oman and Russia.
Despite Araghchi’s presence in Islamabad alongside US envoys, Iranian officials have maintained there are no direct talks with Washington — framing the visit as discussions with Pakistan, not the United States.
On paper, the overlap suggests momentum. In practice, it points to a diplomatic track struggling to define itself.
While Washington describes the meetings as engagement with Iranian representatives, Iranian state-linked media has insisted Araghchi has no plans to meet US officials — a denial that directly undercuts Trump’s claim.
The contradiction leaves a central question unresolved: who exactly is talking to whom?
Trump’s assertion that US officials are now dealing with Iran’s “real power” appears aimed at projecting a breakthrough after earlier rounds of talks collapsed, in part due to concerns that negotiations were not reaching Tehran’s key decision-makers.
But with Iran publicly rejecting the premise of direct engagement, the claim risks appearing detached from the reality on the ground.
The involvement of Pakistan as an intermediary further complicates the picture, suggesting that any communication that is taking place may be indirect — routed through mediators rather than conducted face-to-face.
Vice President JD Vance, who led earlier efforts, is not attending but remains on standby, underscoring the tentative nature of the process.
Trump has also suggested Iran may soon present a proposal that could satisfy US demands, raising expectations that Islamabad could once again become a focal point for a fragile diplomatic push.
For now, both sides appear to be describing entirely different realities: one claiming access to Iran’s top decision-makers, the other denying the talks are happening at all.
In a process defined by proximity but not clarity, even the basic question of whether negotiations are taking place remains contested.