Iranian President says threats and sanctions must be removed in practice to pave the way for dialogue; We cannot increase the intensity of sanctions and pressure every day, close the avenues of interaction, and at the same time talk about negotiations

• Dialogue with the language of threats and pressure is meaningless.

Iranian statements conditioning dialogue on the removal of sanctions are a recurring feature of the negotiation cycle between Tehran and Washington, and have historically functioned as opening position-setting rather than a genuine shift in either direction. The familiar sequence is public insistence on sanctions relief as a precondition, followed by indirect or back-channel contact, with actual movement coming only when both sides need de-escalation for domestic or economic reasons. The signal content is limited: rhetoric of this kind has preceded both eventual talks and prolonged stalemates, and the tell has tended to be activity rather than language, namely any change in enrichment posture, proxy activity in the region, or movement through intermediaries. For crude, the established pattern is that hardened public positions support the geopolitical risk premium at the margin, while verified steps toward a framework that would return Iranian barrels to the market have historically weighed on the curve, with freight and insurance costs the first channel to reprice. Worth noting that presidential rhetoric in Iran does not carry final authority on foreign policy, which rests with the supreme leadership, so alignment or divergence between the two voices is the more informative read.