Is a US-Iran Deal Still Possible After Rubio’s Rebuff?

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Sunday 8 November that the Iran talks are not close to a breakthrough. Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, answered the same day that his two-day proposal “stands” and that the White House can accept it or “choose war”. On Monday 9 November, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman added that Tehran will not drop its demand that sanctions and the naval blockade end before talks begin.

Trump, speaking by telephone on Sunday, called renewed bombing “highly unlikely”. Four days earlier, Vice President JD Vance had blamed the Iran war for his party’s midterm losses.

The earlier round is in Is a US-Iran Deal Close? What Vance and Tehran Said. The full sequence is on the Iran-US talks tracker.

Rubio says the talks have not been productive and calls some Iranian demands “outrageous and ridiculous”. Araghchi says the two-day proposal stands and the choice rests with Washington. Trump says he can resume strikes but does not expect to need to. Baghaei says sanctions and the blockade must end before talks begin.

Rubio spoke to reporters at Homestead Air Reserve Base in Florida on Sunday, before flying to Paris for a meeting of G7 foreign ministers. “I wouldn’t say we’re at the verge of a breakthrough,” he said. On the talks themselves: “Right now it hasn’t been very productive, because the Iranian demands are simply not just unacceptable, but in some cases outrageous and ridiculous.” He added: “If there’s a chance to do it, we’ll explore it.”

Araghchi replied in a written statement on social media the same day. “Our 2-day proposal stands: meet the requirements, including end to war on all fronts, and you will see results,” he wrote. The next sentence carried the threat: “Or choose war, and see our alert and battle-hardened Warriors rain down hell.” He also said that mediators had been inactive for several days because of the US election result and that more time was needed before diplomacy could resume.

Trump gave a telephone interview on Sunday in which he was asked whether strikes would resume. He said it depended on “whether or not they sign a very strong agreement”. Then: “I would if necessary, but we hit them really hard. I hit them so hard. You don’t know how hard I hit them.” And: “So, it’s highly unlikely I’ll have to. They’re withering away financially.” Trump ended with “We could finish them off.”

On Monday, the Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, Esmaeil Baghaei, answered Rubio directly. “Perhaps, in their view, it is reasonable for the Islamic Republic to give up pursuing its rights,” he said. He called Iran’s demand that Washington lift sanctions, the naval blockade and economic pressure before talks begin reasonable, and said the attack during the negotiations was the absurd element. He said the two-day plan remains available if Washington meets Tehran’s demands. He also said Iran sees no difference between the US parties, because both have harmed it.

Rubio says Iran’s demands are the obstacle. Araghchi says meeting the requirements is the price of results. Baghaei calls the demand for sanctions relief before talks reasonable. Each side names the other’s precondition as the problem. Neither has said which part it would drop.

On 3 November Trump said the US was “locked and loaded if we need to go, but there may be no reason for it.” On 8 November he said: “it’s highly unlikely I’ll have to.” Neither Rubio nor Araghchi gave a date.

Vance wrote on 4 November: “The real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone.” His post named the war, the cost of living, America not being prioritised and the relationship with Israel. That morning Trump called the post “good” and said, “I think it was fine.” He also said: “The Iran thing, we had to do and we continue to do it.”

Araghchi addressed the same American audience. He said Americans are “sick and tired” of Israel dragging Washington into “forever wars”. His appeal and his threat came in the same statement.

The Qatari channel is the first marker. Reports on Monday said Qatar’s prime minister was due to meet Trump at the White House. Araghchi has said mediators were paused by the election.

The blockade is the second. Trump’s “withering away financially” describes a policy still in force, and Baghaei’s demand targets it. Any change to it would be the first concrete step by either side.

The third is Paris. Rubio is meeting G7 foreign ministers, and any joint wording on Hormuz would show where Washington’s partners stand. Until one side moves first, expect more statements like Sunday’s and no meeting.