Press TV, on Iran, 27 October 2026

6.0out of 10Serious

No talks with US before Iran’s conditions are met: Senior lawmaker

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.3 findings

A senior Iranian lawmaker says the Islamic Republic will not negotiate with the United States unless Tehran’s seven conditions are met, warning that against the country would prompt a stronger response and have consequences across the region.

Alaeddin Boroujerdi, a member of the Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, made the remarks to Lebanon’s al-Mayadeen television channel in an exclusive interview on Monday.

Iran has communicated its conditions to the US through mediators towards resolving the issues surrounding the Strait of Hormuz.

The Islamic Republic closed the waterway . Iran and the US agreed on a 60-day reopening period as part of a Pakistan-mediated memorandum of understanding in June, .

Tehran has previously named some of its conditions for reopening the chokepoint as cessation of aggression on all fronts, , and unfreezing of Iran’s frozen assets.

‘Iran to tighten conditions if US launches another war’

According to Boroujerdi, Iran’s conditions would become more stringent if Washington resumed the aggression.

He said the Islamic Republic’s missile stockpile has increased by “more than 50 percent,” while categorically ruling out surrendering the country’s enriched uranium.

Iran’s national security chief says not a single particle of enriched uranium will go outhttps://t.co/or1EbzSctA

— Press TV 🔻 (@PressTV) October 20, 2026

“Some parties in Iran believe there is no point in adhering to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if the United States does not abide by it,” he said.

‘Hormuz shipping faces new reality’

The legislator said Oman had agreed to a new arrangement negotiated with Iran concerning the Strait of Hormuz, but .

, he warned that preventing Iran from exporting its oil would halt oil exports from the entire region.

Amid the overall situation affecting the Strait of Hormuz , the lawmaker noted that “the navigation system in the Strait of Hormuz will not return to its previous status.”

🔴 Chief of the General Staff of Iran’s Armed Forces, Major General Ali Abdollahi inspects forces' readiness across the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Gulf of Oman: pic.twitter.com/B3EMyPEIOl

— Press TV 🔻 (@PressTV) October 26, 2026

‘Regional states have lost confidence in US’

The official hailed a recent quadrilateral meeting in Tehran involving representatives from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey as a positive first step towards regional cooperation, saying the meeting involved a positive exchange of views.

According to Boroujerdi, the three states have announced their respective intentions to send security delegations to the Iranian capital.

He noted that regional countries had lost confidence in Washington’s ability to guarantee their security and were reassessing their policies.

He urged regional governments to understand that “the United States cannot help [them] provide their security,” adding that countries that established relations with had miscalculated and would face the consequences.

Read the original article on presstv.ir (opens in a new tab)
What we found (3)

Press TV reports a senior Iranian lawmaker's conditions for talks with the US, but in its own narration it states Iran's government positions as settled fact. It calls the US blockade and sanctions illegal, says American violations forced the Strait of Hormuz closure, and describes the 28 February attack and its effects as aggression, all without attribution or supporting facts. Only the Iranian side is heard.

  1. States one side's claim as fact

    Serious

    “following the launch of the American-Israeli aggression against the country on February 28”

    Why this matters
    In its own narration Press TV calls the 28 February attack "aggression", a characterisation that is Iran's government's position.
    The impression it gives
    The reader takes it as established fact that the start of hostilities was American-Israeli aggression.
    The context
    The article gives no facts about what happened on 28 February. It attributes nothing in this sentence to Boroujerdi or any official. The label is the outlet's own verdict.

    Show it in the article

    “but American violations forced Tehran to re-establish the closure”

    Why this matters
    Press TV asserts in its own voice that the US violated the June memorandum and that this forced Iran to close the strait again.
    The impression it gives
    The reader believes it is settled that the US broke the deal and that Iran's re-closure was a forced response.
    The context
    The article names no violation, cites no source for the claim and gives no US or Pakistani account of how the reopening collapsed. This is one party's contested version of events, written as fact.

    Show it in the article

    “removal of an illegal naval blockade that the US has imposed on the country, lifting of illegal sanctions”

    Why this matters
    While listing Tehran's conditions, Press TV adds "illegal" to both the blockade and the sanctions in its own narration.
    The impression it gives
    The reader takes the illegality of the blockade and the sanctions as an established legal fact.
    The context
    The article cites no ruling or legal body for either claim. The conditions are Tehran's, but the legal verdict is the outlet's own, given without any support.

    Show it in the article

    “Referring to the illegal American blockade targeting the Islamic Republic”

    Why this matters
    Press TV repeats the word "illegal" in its own framing of the lawmaker's remark, outside any quotation.
    The impression it gives
    The reader is told a second time, in the outlet's voice, that the blockade's illegality is settled.
    The context
    No source or legal finding is offered anywhere in the article for the blockade being illegal.

    Show it in the article

    “as a result of foreign aggression against the Islamic Republic”

    Why this matters
    Press TV places the cause of the Hormuz situation on "foreign aggression" in its own narration, before it introduces the lawmaker's quote.
    The impression it gives
    The reader accepts as fact that the disruption in the strait is entirely the result of aggression against Iran.
    The context
    The article itself says Iran closed the waterway (S4) and re-established the closure (S5). It does not support placing the cause solely on foreign aggression, and it attributes this framing to no one.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“The Islamic Republic closed the waterway”

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    Iran closed the waterway after the US and Israel launched attacks on the country on 28 February. Tehran says US violations of the June memorandum forced it to restore the closure, and it calls the US naval blockade and sanctions illegal.

  2. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “the Israeli regime”

    Why this matters
    Press TV uses "the Israeli regime" in reported speech without quotation marks, so the label reads as the outlet's own.
    The impression it gives
    The reader takes "regime" as a neutral description of Israel's government.
    The context
    "Regime" carries a verdict. If it is the lawmaker's word, it belongs inside quotation marks and attributed to him.

    Show it in the article

    “renewed unprovoked aggression”

    Why this matters
    The paraphrase adds "unprovoked" with no quotation marks, so the characterisation is not clearly marked as the lawmaker's.
    The impression it gives
    The reader takes any future US action as unprovoked by definition.
    The context
    Whether an action is provoked is a contested judgement. The article gives no facts to support it and does not mark the word as Boroujerdi's.

    Show it in the article

  3. One side gets the space

    Minor

    “US pressure on Muscat prevented an expected joint statement from being issued”

    Why this matters
    Press TV relays the lawmaker's charge against the US and Oman and seeks no Omani or US response.
    The impression it gives
    The reader comes away with the Iranian account of why the joint statement failed as the only account.
    The context
    Every voice in the article is Iranian. The US, Oman and the Pakistani mediators appear only as subjects of Boroujerdi's claims.

    Show it in the article

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Press TV

  1. 27 OctIran censures UN Security Council double standard on nuclear inspections6.0
  2. 27 OctPezeshkian tells Putin US actions make closer ties among sanctioned countries necessary0.0
  3. 27 OctUS ‘guarantees’ proven ineffective; region must rid itself of foreign interference: Rezaei7.3
  4. 27 OctUS aggression in Persian Gulf threatens energy security, economic growth, Pezeshkian tells GECF0.0
  5. 27 OctTrump peddles fresh falsehoods, claims Iran ‘started the war’ as US aggression drags on6.0

Everything we scored from Press TV