Tehran and Washington are locked in a war of words over claims that the United States is in direct negotiations with Iran’s powerful parliament speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. President Donald Trump has publicly asserted that Washington is “negotiating” with Ghalibaf, portraying him as a key figure in a more pragmatic wing of Iran’s leadership. However, Ghalibaf has hit back sharply, calling the suggestion “fake news” and accusing the U.S. of using “desires as news” to manipulate markets and public opinion.

Trump said the United States is engaged in talks with Ghalibaf, a former Revolutionary Guard commander and current head of the Iranian parliament. He described the exchanges as part of a broader effort to end the current standoff, hinting that if a deal is not reached within a short window, the U.S. could launch large‑scale strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure. Among the targets he mentioned were oil facilities, power plants, and even desalination plants, which could deepen the economic and humanitarian impact of any escalation. By naming Ghalibaf, Trump appears to be trying to signal that there is a negotiable, “reasonably acceptable” faction inside Iran willing to talk. That framing, analysts say, is aimed at both domestic audiences and international markets, projecting a sense that diplomacy is still possible even as the threat of military action looms.

Ghalibaf has rejected the claim outright, posting a sharp rebuke on social media in which he accused the United States of turning “desires into news.” He dismissed the idea that direct negotiations are taking place, portraying Trump’s remarks as a tactic to influence oil prices and global financial markets while also attempting to shape perceptions of Iran’s internal politics. He also warned that any strike on Iranian interests would be met with a forceful response, underscoring that Iran’s institutions and the public stand firmly behind Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei. Iran’s official‑aligned media have echoed this line, stressing that any communication with Washington has been indirect, channeled through third‑country mediators rather than formal, direct talks.

The back‑and‑forth is less about confirming or denying the existence of a specific back channel and more about the political and psychological battle surrounding the crisis. For Trump, identifying a high‑profile Iranian figure like Ghalibaf helps frame the conflict as one that can still be resolved through diplomacy, even as the administration prepares for potential sweeping strikes. For Tehran, rejecting the narrative head‑on reinforces the image that Iran will not be coerced and that its internal power structure remains intact and unified.

Behind the headlines, the real story is in the signals: which side appears more willing to compromise, how quickly threats are escalated, and what intermediaries are being used to relay messages. As long as markets are watching oil flows and regional powers are calculating their own risks, every new statement out of Washington or Tehran will be parsed for signs of escalation—or de‑escalation—in the tense standoff over Iran.