Tehran Positions Itself for Renewed Talks With Washington Part 2

As Iran and the United States appear to be approaching a renewed phase of diplomatic engagement, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei delivered an address preparing the regime for multiple contingencies, including the potential breakdown of negotiations, unilateral or coordinated U.S.-Israeli military strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, and the prospect of a popular uprising orchestrated by foreign adversaries. Ali Larijani, former secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and a recent special envoy of Khamenei to ousted President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, as well as to Lebanon and Iraq, expanded on the supreme leader’s statements, warning that Tehran would actively pursue nuclear weaponization in response to any military aggression. 

• March 30: In his address marking Eid al-Fitr posted on his official website, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei characterized Israel as “an American proxy” in the Middle East, denounced the Israeli military’s actions in the Gaza conflict, and responded to President Donald J. Trump’s March 30 ultimatum – threatening military strikes against Iran should it refuse to negotiate with the United States on its nuclear program:  
  • “They threaten with mischief … We, however, do not deem it likely that any external provocation will materialize, but if it does, they will be dealt a hard blow. Should they seek to instigate sedition within Iran, as they have attempted in the past, the Iranian nation will respond as it has before.” 
• April 1: Ali Larijani addressed Trump’s threats of military action against Iran in an interview with Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting.  
  • Larijani stated: “There is a certain inclination and a perception that the geopolitical conditions are conducive for them to inflict strategic damage on Iran. This assertion that they propagate is somewhat exaggerated. Certainly, in the past year – a year characterized by heightened tensions – we encountered setbacks in specific areas. However, their assessment that Iran has been significantly debilitated is an overstatement. The Israelis amplify this narrative deliberately to maneuver the United States toward direct confrontation with Iran. They do so because Israel, in and of itself, lacks the capability to sustain a dominant regional presence. Not only is Israel incapable of engaging Iran in unilateral hostilities, but its very survival in the region is contingent upon external support. Israel, in reality, functions as an American instrument, as His Lordship articulated in his remarks earlier today. If Israel seeks to act against Iran, it requires unequivocal American backing.” 
  • Turning to the substance of Trump’s letter to Iran, Larijani elaborated: “In diplomatic norms, it is not customary to disclose the contents of private correspondences between heads of state. However, I can confirm that, consistent with his recent public statements, he threatens Iran in the letter. Mr. Trump is undoubtedly a shrewd individual in his own professional domain, which accounts for his financial success, so he is presumably aware that his rhetoric carries a cost. Nonetheless, the leader has indicated that he does not deem a military confrontation highly probable.” But even if the probability of military engagement is marginal, he continued, Iranian “military commanders remain fully prepared. Now, why do we assess the likelihood of a U.S. offensive as low? First, what strategic benefit would it yield for the United States? In Afghanistan, the Americans expended approximately $2 trillion to prevent the Taliban from regaining control. Ultimately, the Taliban now governs Afghanistan. In Iraq, they invested an estimated $7 trillion to $8 trillion, only to concede their miscalculations. Thus, what incentive exists for the United States? Iran is mightier than either of these states. Unless, of course, external pressure from Israel compels them, or Mr. Trump miscalculates and opts to engage militarily as a high-stakes gamble. A confrontation with Iran is not without serious ramifications. We categorically do not seek such an outcome. Second, Mr. Trump brands himself as a peace-oriented leader. If this is the case, why does he consistently invoke the language of war? There is a fundamental contradiction here. If the objective is peace, then the logical course of action would be to advance national interests through economic engagement. The United States currently stands at a crossroads: It can either prioritize its economic imperatives and pursue an equitable economic relationship with Iran, fostering mutual benefit, or it can continue on its current trajectory of antagonism, which will invariably impose significant costs upon itself.” 
  • Addressing Iran’s nuclear policy, Larijani asserted: “Iran unequivocally states: ‘We possess the technical capability, but the leader has issued a fatwa prohibiting the pursuit of nuclear weapons.’ A fatwa differs fundamentally from an executive order. To the best of my knowledge, his decree has also been formally registered with the United Nations. Moreover, just days ago, the U.S. director of national intelligence, a lady, explicitly stated, ‘We know that Iran is not actively pursuing nuclear weapons.’ If this is the intelligence consensus, then on what grounds do these accusations persist? I contend that the United States is engaging in a strategic miscalculation. Iran’s nuclear activities remain under the rigorous supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and there is no pursuit of weaponization. However, should external actors miscalculate and intensify coercive measures against Iran’s nuclear program, they will be the ones compelling Iran to reassess its strategic posture. Iran’s national security imperatives must be safeguarded. Heightened pressure would create an impetus for policy recalibration. This is not Iran’s preferred trajectory, but under duress, it could become an inevitable course of action. The Iranian populace would demand it in the interest of national defense. Such an outcome would not serve American interests. We have consistently maintained that we do not seek nuclear weapons. The IAEA may continue its oversight; we have no objections, and the oversight can continue until eternity, as our position is not mere posturing.” However, he said to the United States, should you “orchestrate hostilities, whether directly or via Israel, you will leave Iran with no alternative but to reassess its strategic calculus. What we are advocating is this: Rather than adopting a confrontational stance, you should reconsider your policy approach toward Iran.” 
  • Referring to Trump’s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Larijani remarked: “We engaged in negotiations for a year and a half, yet they nullified the agreement. Now, they propose negotiations but fail to articulate their demands. Let us, therefore, engage in indirect discussions to ascertain their objectives. Diplomatic negotiations operate within a structured framework; we seek clarity on what they expect from Iran and what they are willing to offer in return. Occasionally, certain American officials, typically from subordinate ranks, exhibit a propensity for belligerent rhetoric against Iran. Such remarks lack substantive weight. For instance, regarding Iran’s nuclear program, some speak as if it should not exist at all. However, such statements are inconsequential. We must first test the feasibility of negotiations through indirect channels to discern their intentions before making a decision.” 
  • Commenting on Trump’s repeated threats, Larijani stated: “When a leader reiterates the same threats incessantly, the statements lose credibility. He issued threats against Russia, which Russia disregarded, resulting in no tangible action. He has also made assertions regarding Greenland and Canada, which he reportedly desires as U.S. states. Such declarations are aspirational; however, in the absence of feasible conditions, they remain unactualized. They engage in extensive rhetoric, yet we acknowledge the slight possibility of an unorthodox maneuver, which is why our military remains on high alert.” 
  • Regarding Khamenei’s warning of “domestic sedition,” Larijani explained: “This notion emerged in external discourse. There is an argument among adversaries of the Islamic Republic suggesting that an internal insurrection should be synchronized with external military action against Iran. However, more astute Western analysts recognize that such strategies, while aspirational, have historically failed. Economic conditions remain challenging, but they cannot sever the bond between the Iranian populace and the revolution.”  
• April 1: Nour News Agency, the unofficial media outlet of the Supreme National Security Council, affirmed that Larijani’s statements reflect Iran’s official stance. The agency reiterated:  
  • “Iran will, under no circumstances, pursue nuclear weaponization. However, sustained security threats from adversarial actors could generate strategic imperatives that may compel Iran to reconsider policies it has thus far refrained from adopting.” 

The views represented herein are the author's or speaker's own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AGSI, its staff, or its board of directors.