# Ghalibaf says Iran will not enter talks with the U.S. until ceasefire and asset demands are met
*Event date: 2026-04-10*
Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said peace talks with the United States would not begin until there was a ceasefire in Lebanon and Iranian assets were unfrozen, according to Al Jazeera. The statement is important because it shows how the diplomatic tracks around the region were being tied together rather than handled separately.
Ghalibaf’s position was conditional and explicit: no negotiations until the fighting stopped and financial pressure was eased. That links the prospect of talks directly to two separate issues, one military and one economic. In practical terms, it means Iran was not treating dialogue as a standalone process but as something dependent on concessions and de-escalation elsewhere in the region.
The supplied reporting places the remarks in a broader context of continuing war and ceasefire discussions involving Iran, Israel, Lebanon and the United States. That wider environment matters because it means the comment was not just a domestic political line. It was part of a regional bargaining posture, with each side signaling what would have to change before they would meet at the table.
The asset issue is especially telling. Frozen funds are a core leverage point in sanctions diplomacy, and tying them to talks suggests Iran wanted concrete economic relief, not just promises. Likewise, demanding a ceasefire in Lebanon before opening talks implies Tehran was trying to use the battlefield as part of its diplomatic leverage. The report did not say whether any response from Washington followed immediately.
The language also illustrates the role of the Iranian parliament in setting political tone, even when final foreign policy decisions lie elsewhere. Ghalibaf’s remarks can be read as a public warning that negotiation without prior conditions would be rejected. That makes them more than a procedural comment; they are a statement about the price of engagement.
For readers tracking the regional crisis, the key point is that talks were not simply on hold because of a calendar delay. They were being suspended until two concrete conditions were met. The report does not establish whether those demands were realistic or whether they were designed mainly as leverage, but it does show that Iran was speaking in a hard line. In a conflict where diplomacy and coercion are running side by side, that kind of statement can itself move the battlefield.
