Iran denies rumors of U.S. back-channel peace talks as 60-day ceasefire window expires

Iran on Monday denied allegations that elements of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were involved in back-channel peace talks with the United States using Kurdish intermediaries in Iraq, as a 60-day ceasefire period tied to the broader conflict context reached its end.

In a statement carried by The Washington Times, Iranian officials said the claim circulating in recent days was not accurate, and they rejected the premise that Tehran was pursuing secret discussions that would run around publicly stated negotiating positions. The denial came with the ceasefire window lapsing on Monday, heightening attention on whether either side would seek to reset terms to reduce risk on the ground.

The report said the rumors pointed to Iraqi territory, specifically through Kurdish intermediaries, as the channel for contact between Tehran and Washington. Iran characterized such accounts as incorrect, while reiterating a hard line against negotiations unless conditions meet Tehran’s stated requirements.

The ceasefire period’s expiration, according to the same reporting, placed fresh emphasis on the political and operational stakes of any shift in diplomatic posture. While the story centered on the denial of back-channel efforts, the timing suggested that public uncertainty about talks could affect military planning, civilian risk, and diplomatic leverage.

Iran’s position, as described in the report, is that discussions with the United States would not proceed on the terms implied by the rumors, particularly without concessions from Washington. Tehran’s response maintained its broader stance that negotiation cannot be separated from its demands and its approach to the war’s direction.

The denial also underscored the role of third-party actors in rumor cycles during active conflicts. Kurdish intermediaries in Iraq have long been referenced in regional disputes, and the report indicated that those familiar pathways are now being invoked as part of unverified claims about how talks might occur.

For U.S. and regional officials, the practical question is what the lapse of the 60-day ceasefire means for the immediate next steps in crisis management. With Iran publicly denying a proposed channel, attention is likely to return to whether any formal contact process exists, whether any publicly announced extension is pursued, and how both sides manage deconfliction and escalation risks going forward.

The episode also highlights how quickly wartime narratives can turn on allegations of quiet diplomacy. Even without confirming the existence of talks, the sequence of rumor, denial, and ceasefire expiry can influence expectations among affected communities and armed actors in the region as the conflict enters a new phase.