WANA (Apr 19) – Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, presented a comprehensive account in a televised interview, outlining the military and political developments of the recent conflict. He framed Iran’s “10 demands,” approved by the Supreme National Security Council, as non-negotiable principles guiding both military actions and diplomatic efforts.

 

Ten demands as the unchangeable framework

Ghalibaf began by expressing sympathy for families who lost loved ones, stating that the rights gained on the battlefield have not only been preserved but have been clearly defined in ten key points that now shape all high-level decisions.

 

He stressed that these demands are not subject to compromise from a position of weakness, and that any negotiations will strictly operate within this framework. Public awareness, he added, is a fundamental right, making transparency a duty for officials.

 

Attack during negotiations; a repeated pattern

He noted that the opposing side once again initiated military action in the midst of negotiations, describing it as a continuation of a recurring pattern. The killing of senior military commanders at the outset of the conflict, he said, reflected this same approach.

 

Rapid response; a key difference from previous conflicts

Ghalibaf highlighted the speed of Iran’s response as a defining feature of this war. Unlike previous engagements, where reactions were delayed, this time Iran responded almost immediately, despite the loss of top commanders.

 

He described this as evidence of structural resilience and improved operational readiness.

 

Military advancements; from defense to operational design

He pointed to significant progress in military capabilities, particularly in air defense, offensive power, and, most notably, operational planning.

 

According to him, these advancements, achieved within a short timeframe, surprised the opposing side and were clearly demonstrated on the battlefield.

Iranian women walk on a street, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, April 1, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

The reality of war; not destruction, but strategic victory

Addressing public perceptions, Ghalibaf clarified that Iran did not “destroy” its adversaries, but emphasized that victory should be measured by outcomes. From this perspective, he argued, Iran emerged as the winner.

 

He explained that in asymmetric warfare, success depends less on sheer firepower and more on strategy, decision-making, and understanding the opponent—areas in which he believes the opposing side made critical errors.

 

Unmet objectives of the United States

Ghalibaf listed several goals attributed to the U.S., including forcing Iran into submission, changing its political system, dismantling its missile capabilities, triggering internal unrest, and opening new fronts along its borders.

 

He stated that none of these objectives were achieved and pointed to the failure to build international consensus, including within NATO, as part of this broader setback.

 

From “quick victory” claims to a ceasefire request

He noted a shift in rhetoric, saying that while the opposing side initially spoke of a rapid victory within days, it later sought a ceasefire after weeks of conflict.

 

This, he argued, reflects the inability to meet its original objectives.

 

Battlefield, public presence, and diplomacy as one front

Introducing the concept of “diplomacy of strength,” Ghalibaf stressed that military operations, public mobilization, and diplomacy should not be viewed separately.

 

Instead, he described them as interconnected elements of a single strategy, where negotiations serve as a continuation of battlefield efforts through different means.

 

Negotiations; Iran sets the terms

He outlined the negotiation process, stating that an initial 15-point proposal was presented by the opposing side but rejected by Iran.

 

In response, Iran introduced its own 10-point framework, which became the basis for discussions. Even when a revised 9-point proposal was later offered, Iran maintained its position and insisted on its original demands.

Iranian Delegation “Minab 168” Arrives in Islamabad for Potential Talks with the United States. Social media / WANA News Agency

Iranian Delegation “Minab 168” Arrives in Islamabad for Potential Talks with the United States. Social media / WANA News Agency

Mediators and intensive talks in Pakistan

Ghalibaf said that proposals were conveyed through multiple intermediaries before being formally delivered by Pakistan.

 

He added that key negotiations took place over roughly 30 hours in the final days of the conflict, marking a turning point toward a preliminary agreement.

 

No direct talks before the final 48 hours

He emphasized that no direct negotiations occurred until the final 48 hours before the ceasefire, with earlier exchanges limited to indirect messages through mediators.

 

Formal negotiations, he said, only began after the ceasefire request was made.

 

Threats against infrastructure and Iran’s deterrent response

Ghalibaf referred to U.S. threats to target Iran’s infrastructure, stating that Iran responded by warning such actions would have broader consequences, potentially harming U.S. interests and its allies more than Iran itself.

 

He suggested that this response played a role in deterring further escalation.

 

Lebanon as a key precondition

He identified a ceasefire in Lebanon as a critical prerequisite for Iran’s engagement in negotiations.

 

According to Ghalibaf, Iran held direct consultations with Lebanese officials and made clear that without a complete ceasefire there, neither negotiations nor a broader ceasefire would proceed.

Iranian women next to flags of Hezbollah and Iran, as they attend the 47th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Tehran, Iran February 11, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

Explicit warning; ceasefire or escalation

He added that Iran warned it would halt negotiations and resume military action if attacks continued, a stance he said contributed to the eventual cessation of hostilities.

 

Strait of Hormuz; strategic leverage

Ghalibaf described Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz as a major strategic asset, emphasizing that its use is subject to Iran’s rules and regulations.

 

A direct confrontation; 15-minute deadline

He recounted an incident in which U.S. forces were warned to withdraw or face attack. According to him, they requested a 15-minute window and ultimately retreated, illustrating Iran’s enforcement of its red lines.

 

Opposition to maritime containment

He rejected attempts to restrict Iran’s maritime access, calling such measures unacceptable and warning of reciprocal actions if they continue.

 

Ceasefire as a tactical decision

Ghalibaf stressed that accepting the ceasefire was a calculated move aimed at consolidating gains and securing Iran’s rights, not a sign of weakness.

 

Deep distrust toward the United States

He reiterated that Iran maintains deep distrust toward the U.S., stating that any progress in negotiations depends on tangible steps toward rebuilding trust.

 

He added that Iran’s approach remains based on “commitment for commitment.”

People walk next to an anti-U.S. bilbord on a street, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, April 5, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

Ongoing disputes; nuclear issues and Hormuz

Ghalibaf acknowledged that significant disagreements remain, particularly over nuclear issues and the Strait of Hormuz, and emphasized that Iran will not compromise on these matters.

 

The role of the public

He described public unity and participation as a central pillar of national strength, supporting both military and diplomatic efforts.

 

Looking ahead; readiness for all scenarios

In conclusion, Ghalibaf stated that while Iran does not seek war, it remains fully prepared to respond decisively to any aggression.

 

He framed the path forward as a combination of resistance, diplomacy, and the firm pursuit of national rights.