So, What's Going On With Iran?

BREAKING: Immunity for two key figures in the Iranian leadership:

Iran regime's FM and Parliament Speaker get temporary immunity from the US and Israel, Channel 14's @bardugojacob reports.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf received… pic.twitter.com/EHLIlEfrxY

— C14 News Israel | EN (@c14israel) March 24, 2026

As I noted yesterday, it's a near-impossible task to try to put together even the vaguest and most superficial account of what's happening in the Iran negotiations, I think in large part because legacy media is leveraging the laziness and complacency of its staff to work in its favor.

The best information I've found over the past day simply hasn't been from US sources, for instance, the X post above from an Israeli TV station. I take "temporary immunity from Israel and the United States" to mean a promise not to blow them up with missiles for the duration.

This Fox News story does provide some perspective on Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, after first quoting Trump, ""Nobody knows who to talk to, but we're actually talking to the right people, and they want to make a deal so badly."

Trump’s statement that he is speaking to a "top person" has focused attention on one name in particular: Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

The White House is quietly exploring Ghalibaf as a potential interlocutor and even a possible future leader, Axios reported.

A former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander and current parliament speaker, Ghalibaf represents a hybrid figure inside the system, bridging military credentials and political authority.

. . . Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi remains one of the most visible figures internationally.

If talks were to take place, Araghchi likely would be part of the Iranian delegation alongside Ghalibaf, Reuters reported.

But analysts caution that his role is limited. He may act as a channel for communication, but does not set policy independently.

Another X post from the same Israeli TV station gives the impression that some sort of active debate is taking placr among the Iranian ruling elite. In particular, it seems to confirm my surmise that the military isn't being paid, quite possibly due to a missile or bomb strike on the data center that runs the payroll:

Channel 14 Claims:

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf said, "You took all the money, and now your soldiers are suffering because there are no salaries. Give back what you stole." - per Senior Iran Analyst Dror Balazada

He added: "I don’t trust you to stop the… pic.twitter.com/XWclqhtR9Z

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) March 25, 2026

As of late last week,

Foreign ministers from Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan gathered before dawn Thursday in Riyadh for talks aimed at finding a diplomatic off-ramp to the war in Iran.

But there was one big problem, according to Arab officials involved in the discussions: finding a counterpart in Iran to negotiate with. Earlier that week, Israel killed Iran’s national security chief, Ali Larijani, who had been considered a viable partner who could engage with the West.

But by yesterday,

During the Q&A media segment of Mark Wayne Mullin’s swearing in ceremony, President Trump was asked how he can trust the Iranian leadership he is currently communicating with. President Trump responded that he doesn’t trust anyone; however, the voices in Iran currently negotiating with the U.S. team sent something of great value to the White House to verify their [bona fides].

These voices appear to be Qalibaf and Araghchi. In addition,

President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are involved in ongoing peace talks with Iran.

The president had originally tapped special envoy Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to lead talks with Tehran. However, Iranian officials refused to negotiate with Witkoff and Kushner, according to the Guardian.

“We’re in negotiations right now. They’re doing it, along with Marco and JD; we have a number of people doing it,” the president told reporters in the Oval Office. “The other side, I can tell you, they’d like to make a deal. And who wouldn’t if you were them?”

“Look, their navy is gone. Their air force is gone. Their communications are gone. That’s the biggest problem,” Trump continued. “As opposed to Iran, we’re roaming free. We can do whatever we want, and as you know, today, we were going to have the privilege of shooting down a very big electric generation plant, one of the biggest in the world, and one shot to the right location, ends the plant and it collapses, and we held off, based on the fact that we’re negotiating.”

On the other hand, even if there are negotiations, we don't really know what's being discussed. Acccording to the Wall Street Journal via The Times of Israel,

Iran is demanding reparations for attacks on it, the lifting of all sanctions, and the closure of all US military bases in the Persian Gulf as conditions to end the war with the US and Israel, the Wall Street Journal reports, citing people familiar with the matter.

In addition, Iran wants guarantees that the war won’t start up again, as well as a halt to Israel’s strikes on Iran’s Lebanese proxy Hezbollah, the Journal says.

Iran’s demands also reportedly include a new arrangement in the Gulf that will let the Islamic Republic collect tolls from ships that traverse the strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s oil usually travels.

But, coming as it does from US legacy media, this doesn't appear to be current:

The newspaper cites a US official as saying Iran’s demands were ridiculous and unrealistic, and Arab and US officials as saying Iran’s stance makes the possibility of a deal even more remote than before the war.

The sources cited by the Journal say the messages between Iran and the US were relayed indirectly via Middle Eastern intermediaries late last week.

Channel 12 reported last night that the US had submitted a 15-point plan for ending the war that included an end to Iran’s support for regional terror proxies, restrictions on its ballistic missile program, and dismantling of its nuclear program.

So it appears that following Trump's threat last Friday to take out one or more power plants, a group of Iranians was able to get together, convince Trump they had the authority to negotiate, and even begin some type of serious negotiation, including for starters a promise from the US and Israel that they wouldn't take this group out, at least as long as they negotiated.

But Trump is still holding the strike on the power plant in reserve, while it appears that the negotiators are taking the position with the Iran hardliners that if they can't pay the troops, they can't withstand the Marines. In other words, negotiate now, things will get worse if we don't.

The Wall Street Journal in the meantime is declaring the war already lost:

The latest unpopular war in the Middle East is deepening Mr. Trump’s political difficulties. His job approval has fallen to its lowest point in his second term. A majority see him as focused on problems abroad rather than at home, and on problems other than their principal concerns. They blame him—not Iran, not the oil companies, and certainly not Joe Biden—for rising gasoline prices.

. . . It’s up to the president to conclude this war in the way that does the least damage to our national interest—and to the people’s waning confidence in their public institutions.

The WSJ has never liked Trump. I think it's a bad bet. But if legacy media is so much against the war and our prospects in it, why have they been making it so difficult to get a clear picture of how things are going? It took me several hours yesterday and this morning to come uo with this survery, much of it drawn from non-US sources.