Iranian President Pezeshkian says peace negotiations will not succeed under pressure and threats, Sky News Arabia reports

Statements of this kind from Iranian leadership sit within a long-running pattern in which public rejection of talks 'under pressure' has historically coexisted with continued back-channel or indirect engagement; the posture of refusing to negotiate under duress is a recurring opening position rather than a signal that a diplomatic track has closed. The distinction worth drawing is between rhetoric aimed at a domestic and regional audience, which this framing typically is, and an actual withdrawal from a negotiating process, which would be communicated through intermediaries or formal channels rather than broadcast commentary. Pezeshkian is positioned at the more pragmatic end of the Iranian political spectrum, and remarks of this type from that quarter have tended to leave room for escalation management rather than foreclose it. The transmission channel on comparable episodes runs through crude via the geopolitical risk premium on supply through the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, with freight and insurance costs moving ahead of any physical disruption, though single rhetorical headlines of this kind have typically faded without a follow-on event. What distinguishes a durable repricing from noise is a change in behaviour: sanctions enforcement steps, military posture shifts, or formal suspension of a talks format. Absent those, remarks of this nature are treated as context rather than catalyst.