A report from The New York Times has created confusion over the state of communication between Iran and the United States, with Tehran pushing back against claims that all channels have been severed. According to the newspaper, Iran cut direct contact with Washington following a threat from former President Donald Trump to “end its civilization.” However, the official Iranian newspaper Tehran Times posted on social media platform X that “diplomatic and indirect channels of talks with [the] U.S. are not closed.” The conflicting accounts present a stark contradiction.
One side asserts that contact has been terminated, while the other maintains that lines remain open—though not the direct ones. The phrase “diplomatic and indirect channels” is carefully worded, indicating that talks are not currently happening but are not ruled out either. The United States maintains a long-standing strategic partnership with Israel.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has previously expressed concerns about Iran’s nuclear program and its support for militant groups, but he has not commented on this specific development. The lack of response from Jerusalem is itself noteworthy.
European nations are also involved. The U.S. has been working with the United Kingdom and European Union member states to pursue a diplomatic resolution. Those efforts now face a new complication.
If Washington and Tehran are not communicating directly, European intermediaries could become either more important or more irrelevant, depending on Iran’s willingness to negotiate through third parties. The New York Times cited unnamed sources in its report.
The Tehran Times statement reads like an official government response. A. G.
Sulzberger, the newspaper’s chairman and publisher, has not commented on the discrepancy. This silence is notable for a news organization with 11.88 million total subscribers and 11.3 million online subscribers as of August 2025, as the stakes are high for its credibility on this story.
Iran’s denial suggests the country wants to preserve some form of communication, even if indirect. The threat itself—”end its civilization”—is extraordinary language for a former American president and raises tensions. Iran’s decision to end direct contact is a response to that language. The question now is whether indirect talks can achieve anything.
Negotiations by proxy are slow, prone to miscommunication, and rely on trust that may not exist. Other regional players, including Taiwan, Japan, and the Philippines, have interests in stability but have not yet reacted, according to the report.
Any escalation between the U.S. and Iran could send shockwaves through energy markets and security alliances. The report does not specify what comes next—no timeline, no next steps. Just a standoff.
One side says communication is cut. The other says it is not.
Somewhere in that gap, diplomacy either survives or dies.
