Pezeshkian Tells Macron US 'Stabbed From Behind' as Reply Lands

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian told French President Emmanuel Macron in a phone call this week that the United States had “stabbed Iran from behind” by attacking during the previous round of negotiations, according to a readout published by Al Jazeera. The call landed on the eve of the day Tehran is expected to deliver its formal response to a 14-point American Memorandum of Understanding through Pakistani mediators. For Pezeshkian, the message to Paris was less a negotiating demand than a trust complaint — and it was delivered as the formal reply to Washington was being readied for transmission.

The juxtaposition matters because it places the European track and the American track on the same clock. Iran is engaging publicly with Macron on grievance and on shipping while channeling its substantive reply to Washington through Islamabad. The opening hours of Thursday in Tehran are now the moment of decision in a process where the trust deficit is at least as heavy as the text on the table. Cross-currents on framing are already documented in our framing-gap explainer; this piece is about the European-channel optics surfacing alongside the delivery.

The call

Pezeshkian’s “stabbing from behind” formulation, as carried by Al Jazeera, referred specifically to American strikes that hit Iranian territory during a prior negotiating window. The president did not, in the readout, reject the present American memorandum. He framed past US conduct as the reason Iran’s reply will be cautious.

Macron, for his part, used the call to press two points. He called for the immediate, unconditional reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and he condemned recent strikes on the United Arab Emirates and on shipping in the Gulf as “unjustified.” Paris is positioning itself as a maritime-stability voice rather than a nuclear-file mediator — a posture consistent with French commercial exposure in the Gulf and with Macron’s preferred role as an outside broker.

How the response is moving

The mechanics of the reply, outlined Wednesday by foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei, are that Iran’s answer will reach Washington through Pakistani officials rather than through European capitals or the Swiss protecting-power channel. Baghaei also delivered Iran’s framing line in plain terms: “at this stage, we do not have nuclear negotiations.” That sentence is doing real work. It treats the MOU as an instrument for ending hostilities and stabilizing the Strait, with the nuclear file a separate, later conversation.

“Today” in this timeline means before the close of business Thursday in Tehran. The reply is expected to be transmitted in writing, with Pakistani officials acting as the diplomatic carrier rather than as a negotiating party. The choice of Islamabad as channel — rather than Paris — is itself a signal: Iran is willing to take Macron’s call, but it is not willing to route the substance of its answer through Europe.

Domestic constraints on Pezeshkian

Pezeshkian is not negotiating in a vacuum. Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Ghalibaf publicly mocked reports of an imminent deal earlier this week, and lawmaker Ebrahim Rezaei described the American text as “an American wish list.” Those interventions — from inside the Islamic Republic’s legislature — narrow the political space in which Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi can sign anything that reads, domestically, as a nuclear capitulation.

The “stabbing from behind” line to Macron should be read in that context. It is a statement of grievance that travels well in Tehran — onto state television and into the parliamentary chamber — at the same moment that Pezeshkian’s diplomats are being asked to deliver a constructive reply in writing. The European channel gives the president a venue for the grievance, freeing the Pakistani channel to carry the substance.

The market and military backdrop

The diplomatic moment is colliding with a market that has already priced an outcome. Brent crude settled Tuesday at $101.27, down 7.83 percent on the day; WTI closed at $95.08, off 7.03 percent. The drop was driven by deal optimism and by Washington’s decision to pause Project Freedom, the US-led escort effort in the Strait.

President Donald Trump kept the military option visible from Truth Social, warning that bombing would resume “at a much higher level and intensity than before” if Iran balked. Iran’s IRGC, separately, has continued to claim it can guarantee “safe transit” through the Strait — a claim that depends on whom one asks and which insurer is writing the policy. The mismatch between Trump’s coercive frame and Pezeshkian’s grievance frame is the texture of Thursday.

What to watch

Three things over the next twenty-four to forty-eight hours.

First, whether the terms of Iran’s reply leak. Pakistani channels have been tighter than European ones historically, but a deal of this scale rarely stays sealed past a single news cycle. The first paragraph that leaks — whether it speaks to Hormuz or to enrichment — will tell us which framing has prevailed.

Second, the shape of the White House response. A presidential statement that adopts “phased” or “sequenced” language would suggest Washington is absorbing the Iranian sequencing argument. A statement that re-emphasizes uranium ceilings would suggest the gap is hardening.

Third, the market open. If the reply is read as Hormuz-only, equities and crude will both have to reprice the war-risk premium they already bled out on Tuesday. The S&P 500’s record close was built on the assumption of a comprehensive deal, not a maritime ceasefire.

A formal Iranian reply is expected before the close of business Thursday in Tehran. The Macron call has framed how Pezeshkian wants the world to read it.

Hedging this kind of headline risk is why retail desks have kept gold and short-dated Treasury bills in the conversation through the cycle. Readers looking at the same backdrop can find primer-grade titles on sovereign-risk hedging and a small allocation in physical gold through our hedge bundle — useful as reading and as portfolio context, not as advice.