US Treasury bonds are soaked in Iranian blood
En los márgenes de una diplomacia que nadie admite públicamente, Mohammad Ghalibaf —veterano de los Guardianes de la Revolución, exjefe de policía y actual presidente del Parlamento iraní— ha emergido como el interlocutor silencioso de los enviados de Trump. La paradoja es antigua y conocida: los hombres que negocian en privado suelen ser los que más gritan en público, porque la política interior exige un lenguaje que la diplomacia no puede tolerar. Lo que ocurre entre Washington y Teherán en este momento no es tanto una negociación como un espejo en el que cada parte refleja lo que necesita ver.
- Trump presume de que Irán lo llamó para negociar, pero no sabe —o no dice— con quién habla realmente, lo que revela la opacidad deliberada de este proceso.
- Ghalibaf publica amenazas directas contra instituciones financieras estadounidenses y declara que el Estrecho de Ormuz no volverá a su estado anterior, mientras sus interlocutores son precisamente los enviados de Trump.
- La muerte de Ali Larijani en un ataque israelí el 17 de marzo ha reconfigurado el mapa de poder en Teherán, elevando a Ghalibaf a un protagonismo que él mismo niega públicamente.
- El lunes, Ghalibaf publicó una serie de mensajes negando cualquier contacto con Washington, exigiendo castigo ejemplar para los agresores y declarando su lealtad absoluta al líder supremo.
- Este doble discurso —retórica de guerra hacia afuera, canal abierto hacia adentro— señala o una estrategia calculada para sobrevivir políticamente en Irán, o una fractura real en el proceso de toma de decisiones del régimen.
Donald Trump ha presumido de que Irán lo llamó para negociar, aunque admite no haber hablado con el líder supremo Jamenei y no saber con certeza quién conduce el país. Sin embargo, medios israelíes y estadounidenses han identificado a un hombre concreto: Mohammad Ghalibaf, presidente del Parlamento iraní.
Ghalibaf tiene 64 años y una trayectoria que lo sitúa en el corazón del aparato de seguridad iraní: comandó la fuerza aérea de los Guardianes de la Revolución, dirigió la policía nacional y fue alcalde de Teherán. Intentó llegar a la presidencia en cuatro ocasiones sin éxito. En mayo de 2020 asumió la presidencia del Parlamento, relevando a Ali Larijani, quien murió el 17 de marzo en un ataque israelí.
En sus redes sociales, Ghalibaf ha sido uno de los críticos más encendidos de Estados Unidos e Israel. El 14 de marzo se burló de Trump. Tres días después declaró que el Estrecho de Ormuz no volvería a su estado anterior. El domingo escribió que las instituciones financieras que respaldan al ejército estadounidense son objetivos legítimos para Irán. "Los bonos del Tesoro de EE.UU. están empapados de sangre iraní", publicó.
El lunes, ese mismo hombre negó públicamente que existiera cualquier contacto con Washington, proclamó su lealtad al líder supremo y exigió castigo ejemplar para los agresores.
La paradoja es llamativa: el interlocutor que los enviados de Trump —Witkoff y Kushner— estarían contactando es simultáneamente quien lanza la retórica más inflamada desde Teherán y quien niega que haya negociación alguna. Puede ser un cálculo político para mantener credibilidad ante los sectores más duros del régimen mientras se conserva un canal abierto. O puede ser el reflejo genuino de un proceso de decisión iraní profundamente fracturado. En cualquier caso, Ghalibaf ocupa un lugar extraño: el de quien podría hablar de compromiso usando únicamente el lenguaje del rechazo absoluto.
Donald Trump has been boasting that Iran called him to negotiate. He claims not to know who actually leads the country, says he hasn't spoken with Supreme Leader Khamenei. But the attention of Israeli and American media has fixed on one man: Mohammad Ghalibaf, the president of Iran's Parliament.
Trump didn't name him. But multiple outlets in Israel and the United States reported that Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy, and Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, have been in contact with Ghalibaf. The question becomes: who is this man, and what does it mean that he's the one at the table?
Ghalibaf is 64 years old. He commanded the air force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. He ran Iran's national police. He was mayor of Tehran. He has run for president four times—in 2005, 2013, 2017, and 2024—and lost each time. He withdrew before the 2017 election. In May 2020, he became Parliament's speaker, replacing Ali Larijani, who had held the post since 2008. Larijani was close to the previous supreme leader and served as Iran's top security official. He died in an Israeli strike on March 17.
Online, Ghalibaf has been one of America and Israel's fiercest critics. His posts echo the Revolutionary Guard's threats, sometimes exceeding them. On March 14, he mocked Trump for claiming victory over Iran. Three days later, he declared that the Strait of Hormuz would never return to its pre-war state. On Sunday, he wrote that American financial institutions backing Washington's military are legitimate Iranian targets. "US Treasury bonds are soaked in Iranian blood," he posted. "Whoever buys them buys an attack on their headquarters and assets."
Then on Monday, Ghalibaf posted a series of messages on X denying that any talks with the United States were happening at all. "The Iranian people demand total and exemplary punishment for the aggressors," he wrote. "All Iranian officials firmly support their supreme leader and their people until this objective is achieved."
So here is the paradox: the man Trump's team is reportedly negotiating with is simultaneously denying those negotiations exist and issuing some of the most inflammatory rhetoric coming from Tehran. It is a performance, perhaps, for domestic consumption—a way to maintain credibility with hardliners while keeping a channel open to Washington. Or it is genuine contradiction, a reflection of the fractured nature of Iranian decision-making. Either way, Ghalibaf occupies a strange space: the unofficial voice of potential compromise, speaking in the language of absolute refusal.
Notable Quotes
The Iranian people demand total and exemplary punishment for the aggressors. All Iranian officials firmly support their supreme leader and their people until this objective is achieved.— Mohammad Ghalibaf, in a Monday post denying negotiations
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would Trump's people choose Ghalibaf if he's spent years threatening the US?
Because he's one of the few people in Tehran with credibility on both sides—he's a security hawk, but he's also pragmatic enough to have risen through every major institution.
But his social media posts seem designed to sabotage any negotiation.
They might be. Or they might be cover. In Iranian politics, you can't be seen as soft on America. Ghalibaf has to perform toughness for his base while keeping the door cracked open behind closed doors.
Is he actually in charge, or is he just a messenger?
That's the real question no one can answer from outside. He's Parliament speaker, not supreme leader. But he has the ear of the security establishment and enough independence to move.
What happens if these talks fail?
Then Ghalibaf becomes a liability—he'll have been exposed as the negotiator, which undermines his hardline credentials. That's probably why he's denying everything publicly.
So he's trapped.
In a way. He's useful precisely because he can operate in the shadows. The moment he steps into the light, he loses his value.