Ghalibaf: Negotiations Yielded Far Greater Results Than Military Action
WANA (Jun 18) – Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, described negotiation as a form of struggle, stating that they obtained several times more through negotiation than whatever they wanted to achieve through military action.
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliament speaker and the head of Iran’s negotiating team, addressed various topics regarding the recent war and negotiations during a televised interview with the public.
Failure of Israeli and US Objectives
The head of the Iranian negotiating delegation noted that they had not allowed any of the nine goals stated by the Israeli regime and the United States for starting the war to be realized, adding that the opposing sides had failed to achieve any of their objectives. He stated that this war had precisely demonstrated various dimensions.
He added that looking back at the Sacred Defense era (Iran-Iraq war), the people were also present in the war at that time, but their role was primarily supportive, meaning they provided material aid.
He further mentioned that the atmosphere of the war and the front lines was limited to specific geographical areas defined as “the front” and “behind the front,” while the rest of the country was not significantly under the direct impact of that wartime atmosphere.
The head of Iran’s negotiating delegation emphasized that today, however, they were facing four fields. He explained that the first was their military field, where their armed forces, with high levels of wisdom, courage, and self-sacrifice, were carrying out their duties and taking the lead in the best possible manner.
New Details of U.S. Operation in Isfahan: Infiltration of Nuclear Site Failed
WANA (Apr 07) – A senior Iranian security official provided critical information to Press TV regarding the failed U.S. operation in Isfahan, revealing that the mission was an unsuccessful attempt to infiltrate a nuclear site rather than a rescue mission for a downed pilot. According to the official, the “zero hour” for the failed […]
Ghalibaf continued that the second was their popular field, which he described as the “street of the people.” He noted that since the night of the incident—specifically the dawn of the tenth day of the holy month of Ramadan—the people had entered the field, whether they had eaten their pre-dawn meal or not.
He added that these people, in the words of the Supreme Leader, who had stated that even if they were not there, the nation had been chosen, and they had seen how the nation entered the scene. He pointed out that this field was one that still continued.
Ghalibaf recalled that the third was their diplomatic field, where they maintained a powerful presence, and the fourth was the field of negotiation, whose details he would explain extensively to the host and the dear people that night if time permitted.
Defining the “Diplomacy of Authority”
Ghalibaf stated that he was not aware of any similar example, at least from the beginning of the Revolution to that day. He added that while an effective presence might have existed in another form during certain periods, such as the victory of the Revolution, this particular presence was truly unparalleled.
He explained that those four fields were actually interacting with one another precisely, using a contemporary football season metaphor to describe how they were accurately passing the ball to each other.
The head of Iran’s negotiating delegation clarified that current conditions were such that those four fronts and effective fields moved in complete harmony with one another.
People chant during an anti-U.S. and Israeli rally after Iran’s missile attack on Israel, in Tehran, Iran, June 7, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)
He stated that the flag, which represented the struggle against the force, oppression, and violent behavior of the arrogant US regime and the criminal regime, was held by one of those fields at every moment, every day, and every week. He remarked that they were essentially weaving a garment together, one that would be a victory for Islamic Iran and serve as a source of pride for the nation.
He emphasized that he had rarely seen such harmony, which stemmed from the existence of cohesion, rationality, and authority. He added that definitions varied; for instance, when talking about diplomacy and negotiation, they considered it the “diplomacy of authority.”
He recalled that during the JCPOA period, discussions had taken place, and he had stated at the time that he was not opposed to negotiation but supported it, though attention had to be paid to what kind of negotiation they favored. He clarified that he agreed with a negotiation that itself served as a method of struggle.
Ghalibaf noted that the difference between this round of negotiations and previous ones lay in the fact that the banner of victory from the battlefield—acknowledged by their enemies and witnessed by their friends—had put the grandeur of their nation on display.
He stated that while their armed forces were incomparable in terms of numbers and equipment to an enemy fully armed with advanced technology, facilities, and hardware, the nation had been chosen and believed in divine laws, at the forefront of which was rationality. He asserted that they possessed both rationality and authority.
He continued that an Iranian rationality and authority were manifesting themselves today, demonstrated by a unified Iran. He added that everyone was working side-by-side to weave that same garment of victory to fit the brave nation of Iran, a garment that generated pride and was currently taking shape.
Iran Defense Ministry: Failure to Respect Iranian Rights Will Lead to More Defeats for Trump
WANA (May 23) – Iran’s Defense Ministry has warned that the United States and Israel will face mounting costs and successive defeats if they continue to disregard the legitimate rights and demands of the Iranian nation. Brigadier General Reza Talaei-Nik, the spokesperson for the Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics, made the remarks […]
Geopolitical Impact of the Recent War
Ghalibaf stated that negotiations had previously taken place during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war, resulting in the adoption of Resolution 598. He added that the nuclear negotiations and the JCPOA, which lasted for years, along with the negotiations conducted in the previous two wars, were part of the country’s negotiating history.
He continued that the recent war had fully global impacts, with its effects visible from geopolitical, military, and international perspectives. He explained that the recent war had been imposed on them with the latest technologies by the world’s foremost military, economic, and political power, alongside the Israeli regime, which was one of the nuclear and military powers.
The Speaker of the Islamic Consultative Assembly emphasized that in the recent war, two symbols had stood against each other, one with a monotheistic approach resisting the opposing party’s arrogant approach, which in fact formed the fronts of truth and falsehood.
Simultaneous Negotiation and Deterrence in the Persian Gulf
Ghalibaf continued that they believed neither submission nor mere sloganeering existed, noting that chanting slogans without action made the enemy bold and insolent, as the enemy would perceive it as an empty threat and a bluff.
The Speaker of the Parliament added that they had witnessed objective examples of this approach in the recent war. For instance, regarding the ceasefire, he stated that the enemy itself had been pursuing it, making the request for months while they refused to accept it; however, when the decision to establish a ceasefire was made, they observed that the enemy continued its provocative actions in the Persian Gulf.
He recalled that in the latest instance, they had witnessed the American helicopter incident, which was immediately met with their decisive reaction. He mentioned that the public had seen that two invading frigates were hit and set ablaze to such an extent that satellite imagery confirmed it; although the enemy initially tried to conceal it, the truth was revealed.
He added that even the enemy’s flights from the airports of regional countries were not out of reach of their operations, even though they were simultaneously engaged in negotiations at that very time.
Ghalibaf: U.S. Failed with War, Will Not Succeed with Bullying
WANA (Apr 22) – Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, stated in a post on the X social media platform that the United States failed to achieve its objectives through military aggression and will not do so through bullying. Ghalibaf addressed the current regional tensions and the status of international waterways, […]
Ghalibaf added that the situation was the same on the Lebanese front, which was part of the resistance front. He explained that in that agreement, their opposing parties were the United States and its ally, the Israeli regime, and the ceasefire had to encompass the entire front.
He continued that at that point, he wanted to express his gratitude and appreciation to the dear people of Lebanon, especially the Shiites and the heroic Hezbollah, who had courageously entered the field against the aggression of the United States and the Israeli regime, offering nearly “4,000 martyrs” along that path.
Ready for War While Negotiating
Ghalibaf stated that when Dahiyeh in Lebanon was struck, the United States was threatened with a response from their side. He added that around 2:00 AM, Trump posted a tweet instructing Netanyahu that he no longer had the right to strike Dahiyeh. He noted that this outcome was achieved through both the negotiations they were pursuing and their military power.
He emphasized that the Israeli regime had intended to respond to their operations, which led to subsequent operations being launched against them. He remarked that this made the enemy realize that when they spoke of negotiation, their sword was also ready.
The head of Iran’s negotiating delegation added that recently in Tehran, during discussions regarding certain issues with mediators, another incident occurred in southern Lebanon. He noted that while negotiations were ongoing, he posted a tweet affirming that they stood by the issue and would definitely respond to that aggression.
Prioritizing Negotiation and Strategic Deterrence
Ghalibaf emphasized that he had warned the other parties that if they violated Dahiyeh in Lebanon, they would respond under any circumstances. He mentioned that he had conveyed this even as the agreement was taking shape and being finalized, though the other sides replied that such a response would be impossible.
He continued that their friends in the armed forces were prepared, held orders, and operated under the commander’s strategic wisdom, meaning everything was set. He stated that despite being repeatedly urged there not to strike, he maintained that they would certainly do so.
Iranian Army Announces Drone Strike on U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain
WANA (Jun 11) – The Iranian Army announced in a statement that it had launched a drone operation against the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain, in response to the violation of the ceasefire and U.S. military attacks on areas in southern Iran. According to the statement, Iranian military units carried out the […]
He added that he had warned them to be careful not to respond, explaining that since the opposing side had struck, they would strike back, and if they responded further, they would strike the entire region.
The Speaker of the Islamic Consultative Assembly added that this perspective represented a culture that viewed negotiation as a form of struggle. He asserted that whatever they had wanted to achieve through military action, they had obtained several times over through negotiation, stating that the two were not comparable at all.
Ghalibaf added that the public had seen how Trump, the US President, announced a ceasefire by 2:00 AM not just in Dahiyeh but across the whole of Lebanon, speaking to Netanyahu using that exact same tone. He noted that this demonstrated how negotiation served as a method of struggle.
He clarified that the critical factor was reaching the goal. He mentioned that on that night, he had instructed the friends on the military front, with whom he was in constant contact, to remain prepared for the task.
However, he noted that a different outcome occurred and security returned. He pointed out that both that night and today, people had seen that more than 50 percent of the displaced population had returned to their homes.
Ghalibaf added that this represented the power of negotiation, which was itself a method of struggle. He remarked that while he possessed experience in diplomatic work, diplomacy was not his profession. He stated that their colleagues in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs carried out this work professionally, while he considered himself a combatant who pursued the path of diplomacy with the spirit and culture of a warrior.
Accord Reached Through Cohesion and Authority
Ghalibaf said that if anyone had observed Trump’s remarks regarding the agreement—which would receive its final signature—he had stated that he would lift the blockade that very night, and he did lift it.
Iran’s Supreme National Security Council: Immediate Halt to Military Operations and End of Naval Blockade on Iran
WANA (Jun 15) – Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) announced in a statement that the memorandum of understanding related to negotiations aimed at ending the war between Iran and the United States has been finalized. According to the statement, all military operations and hostilities on every front will cease immediately and permanently starting tonight. […]
He continued by urging attention to the fact that this event had occurred under the shadow of cohesion and authority. He stated that their ultimate goal was to remove the fire from over the people.
He questioned whether this outcome would have occurred if there had been no negotiation and they had only fired missiles, concluding that it would not. Conversely, he noted that it would also have been impossible without those missiles, that courage, and that authority.
The head of Iran’s negotiating delegation stated that those four fields actually complemented one another. He explained that if their people had not been in the streets and had not possessed that zeal and cohesion, he, as the current head of the delegation, could not have spoken with such power as a combatant.
He urged never to think of these elements as separate from one another, emphasizing that after God Almighty, such an achievement would never have been possible without the authority of their armed forces and the support and resistance of the people.
Securing Legal and Political Status for Military Successes
Ghalibaf stated that every war could yield victories, but if those victories did not ultimately lead to a legal and political document and get officially recorded, they would provide no benefit, neither in history nor in consolidating battlefield achievements.
He continued that they had now emerged victorious in the 40-day war, and this achievement had to be shaped and consolidated within negotiations. He noted that this was precisely why they had been in the middle of negotiations stating that if the other side struck, they would strike back.
The head of Iran’s negotiating delegation emphasized that when he spoke there, those arguments were transmitted to the mediating party within a matter of minutes. He explained that it was entirely natural for a person sitting there hearing the remarks to transmit them, just as they also transmitted messages, with decisions ultimately progressing based on this back-and-forth exchange of messages.
He added that negotiation meant exactly this. He explained that when conditions progressed in this manner, discussions arose regarding what would happen in that document. He stated that they were sitting at the negotiating table to amend certain clauses of that document, noting that they had negotiated for three or four hours and the work was moving forward with a specific phrasing.
Global Recognition of Iranian Authority
Ghalibaf added that the people of Lebanon, regardless of their background, religion, or sect, could see that such authority and honor belonged to the Islamic community. He stated that this honor belonged to all the free people of the world.
He remarked that although Sheikh Naim Qassem had expressed his appreciation to them, thanks should actually be given to the Supreme Leader and this zealous, honorable nation. He added that thanks must also be extended to the country’s armed forces, who shed blood and stood firm on this path.
He continued that they, for their part in the negotiating delegation, had pursued and advanced the work as combatants. He noted that the Quran had taught them to bring everything together and to advance the work with rationality and authority.
Transitioning Focus to the Field of Service
Ghalibaf recalled that he was now speaking to their dear people from the position of their servant, not as the head of the negotiating delegation, but as a representative of the people in the Islamic Consultative Assembly. He addressed their colleagues in the Parliament, who had trusted him during this time of war and ceasefire and elected him as their servant in the parliament.
He clarified that with the power that exists, they would explain the dimensions of the task starting from the upcoming weekend when its implementation begins, following the formal and technical signing of the agreement that would hopefully take place after him.
The Speaker of the Parliament emphasized that they would make every effort to realize those objectives, noting that it was now time to enter the “field of service.” This meant that they in the parliament, the government, the judiciary, and all sectors had to mobilize.
Mokhber Warns Trump: “Imaginary Blockade” of Hormuz Will Trigger New Fronts
WANA (Apr 14) – Mohammad Mokhber, Advisor to the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, warned today that any attempt by the U.S. to blockade the Strait of Hormuz would be a strategic blunder leading to a “fresh surprise” for Washington. Reacting to recent threats from the Trump administration, Mokhber characterized the U.S. President’s current […]
Ghalibaf continued that they must certainly attend to their dear people first, as the public had genuinely faced many difficulties in the economic sphere, and their problems had multiplied in recent times. He stated that today, the primary benefit of this agreement must be managed in a way that the people could see its effects, adding that they must certainly push this work forward.
He noted that another highly important point was that their armed forces definitely required attention, reconstruction, and modernization, and this issue had to be addressed. Therefore, he asserted that they would never abandon these four fields under current conditions, as these fields are never idle.
He remarked that, in the words of the front-line fighters, they must always be “on the edge,” meaning they must stand at the forward edge of the battle for Islamic Iran.
Ghalibaf said that with the formation and realization of this agreement over the 60 days they must pursue to bring it to the final stage, they would hand over the flag to the “field of service” to fully compensate for all the hardships endured by those dear individuals.
National Strength as the Ultimate Guarantee
Ghalibaf clarified that he had always maintained that they must be the most pessimistic of all, because he sat in a position carrying a specific responsibility and was frequently asked about these issues.
Referring to the terms of the agreement, he stated that Clause 14 stipulated that after being finalized and its implementation initiated, the agreement must be approved by the United Nations Security Council and turned into a resolution.
He noted that on a global level, no legal authority was more powerful than a Security Council resolution. Nevertheless, he pointed out that the JCPOA had held the exact same status, yet Trump tore up that official resolution in front of everyone’s eyes in 2016 and 2017.
The Death of the JCPOA and the Rise of a Resistance-Based Foreign Policy
WANA (Sep 17) – Mohammad Javad Larijani, a prominent figure in Iran’s politics and international relations, in his essay “Foreign Policy at a Different Level”, offers a critical assessment of the current foreign policy orientation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He argues that Iran’s diplomacy still moves within a JCPOA-based framework, which relies on […]
The head of Iran’s negotiating delegation added that, consequently, one could not place significant trust in such things. He asserted that what brought trust was power, stating that they themselves must be strong, Iran must be strong, and every single one of them must be strong so that the country remains powerful and does not fall into submission.
He emphasized that the most important guarantee was power and cohesion, along with reliance on Almighty God, the Ashura culture, and Iranian zeal, describing these as their real guarantees.
He noted that even now, the three European countries that had been so persistent regarding the JCPOA had immediately stated their readiness to negotiate with them regarding the sanctions, adding that they did not intend to reject them.
Slogans Alone Do Not Create Power
Ghalibaf stated that national power is guaranteed by cohesion and action, adding that they must proceed with rationality and avoid overcomplicating issues that can be solved easily. He emphasized that slogans alone do not constitute power, warning that chanting slogans twice without action only serves the enemy.
Lebanon as a Non-Negotiable Priority
Ghalibaf rejected claims that they refuse to negotiate, stating that while they maintain clear positions, they had previously informed the mediator that the situation in Lebanon and the issue of frozen funds were serious, central pillars of the talks. He noted that during their travel, his team closely monitored everything due to intense psychological operations targeting them.
He recalled that right before boarding the plane at the airport, he noticed statements by JD Vance regarding Lebanon that were being published simultaneously from Tehran. Ghalibaf mentioned that he immediately insisted at the airport that the situation in Lebanon must be settled first, declaring that no negotiations would commence until this matter was clarified.
Acting out of Duty, Not Personal Desire
Ghalibaf compared the decision-making process to a board of directors or the 290-member parliament, where individuals argue their points beforehand, but once a collective decision or law is passed, everyone is logically and legally bound to support it regardless of their initial stance.
Araghchi: Any Attack on Lebanon Will Be Considered a Violation of the Memorandum
WANA (Jun 16) – Iran’s Foreign Minister announced that a new round of negotiations between Iran and the United States will begin on Friday, coinciding with the official implementation of a memorandum of understanding between the two sides. He also stated that any new military attack by Israel on Lebanon or the continued occupation of […]
He admitted that he was not a volunteer for these negotiations and actually felt a strong aversion to participating. He explained that Donald Trump had ordered the assassination of Commander Qasem Soleimani, who held a uniquely special place in his heart.
Ghalibaf noted that sitting down to resolve issues with the individuals responsible for that act was emotionally difficult for him. However, when all state officials insisted on his presence and rejected alternative nominees, he realized it was no longer a personal matter but a duty, and he commenced the work based on that obligation.
Priority of Assets and Mutual Enforcement
Ghalibaf stated that upon arriving in Pakistan, they spent two and a half hours discussing Lebanon with Asim Munir and the Pakistani Foreign Minister, noting that Vance had spent a similar amount of time discussing Lebanon upon his arrival.
Ghalibaf mentioned that during their direct talks, Vance noted their prior discussions on Lebanon, which Ghalibaf then reinforced as a serious issue until Vance accepted it, describing this as negotiating as a form of struggle. He added that they agreed clauses four, five, and ten regarding assets must be executed first before moving to subsequent sections.
Ghalibaf emphasized that the frozen funds must be successfully transferred into Central Bank accounts. He asserted that if the enemy breaks its promises, they will react accordingly, whereas if the enemy complies, Iran will honor its clear commitments. He stated that even from his current position, he remains right alongside the forces on the battlefield with their fingers on the trigger.
He clarified that if the funds are not received, their sword remains ready, stating that those who do not understand logic must be addressed with the logic of power. He remarked that while he might not be a diplomat, he knows exactly how to make the United States understand what it needs to do.
Why Iran Demands Release of Frozen Assets Before a U.S. Deal
WANA (May 25) – In its ongoing negotiations with the United States, Tehran has made the immediate release of its frozen assets a strict prerequisite for any agreement. This demand is deeply rooted in Iran’s profound mistrust of Washington, shaped by past experiences ranging from the JCPOA collapse to repeated sanctions. Anyone familiar with […]
Strategic Goals of the 21-Hour Session
Ghalibaf recounted that after a brief rest upon arrival, they engaged in nonstop meetings from 7:30 AM until 7:30 AM the following day, completing three rounds of trilateral negotiations.
He noted that while the opposing side focused primarily on the nuclear issue, Iran’s priorities were ending the war, resolving the Lebanese issue, securing their financial claims, obtaining guarantees against future wars or threats, lifting obstacles on oil and petrochemical exports, and unblocking banking, insurance, and transport activities. He estimated that once the full negotiations resume, they could last between two to five months.
He noted that Iran demanded the sanctions-lifting portion be implemented right from the start, as outlined in clause thirteen. Ghalibaf stated that by the end of the 21-hour session, it was clear that the nuclear issue was the enemy’s main interest. He argued that negotiation does not mean submission but represents pure rationality and intelligence.
He mentioned that in the final 20 minutes of the third round, he informed the other parties that he lacked the authorization to discuss the nuclear issue, shifting the focus back to the text of the agreement.
Ghalibaf emphasized that they are as determined at the negotiating table as they are on the battlefield, adding that despite their total distrust of the opposing side, they are now in a position to cash their checks. He concluded that their hands remain on the trigger, but if the enemy is willing to listen, they will proceed with logic; otherwise, the language of power will be used.
Exercising Sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz
Ghalibaf stated that they possess the capability to turn the Strait of Hormuz against their adversaries, noting that Trump had requested assistance from NATO but was denied. He mentioned that they had struck every hostile frigate entering the strait until the final day and would continue to do so.
He pointed out that under international law and the 1982 Convention, passing ships must pay for the services provided to them. Ghalibaf argued that the enemy’s aggressive actions actually transformed the strait’s potential capabilities into active ones, asserting that the management and control of the strait belong to the coastal states and that Iran will exercise its sovereign right to collect fees for its services.
Details of Final Accord Confirm Iran’s Sovereign Rights over Strait of Hormuz
WANA (Jun 15) – An informed source has revealed critical, last-minute amendments to the final text of the Iran-U.S. memorandum of understanding, stating that the agreement firmly establishes the sovereign rights of Iran and Oman over the strategic Strait of Hormuz. For the first time, the United States has officially accepted the principle of maritime […]
Pursuit of War Reparations
Ghalibaf specified that a portion of these financial resources would be directed toward funding reconstruction and compensating for damages under a mechanism to be established. He stated that these domestic investments would ensure the country’s recovery and successfully offset the losses.
He stated that while the specific details would be disclosed during future negotiations, the public has a right to know that obtaining compensation remains a definitive objective that they are actively pursuing, noting that clause six among their 14 points is explicitly dedicated to damages, reconstruction, and reparations.
Negotiating with Authority Amid Total Distrust
Ghalibaf stated that the public possesses a high level of understanding when facts are explained to them, and the enemy possesses this same capacity to comprehend. He explained that although a final agreement was not completely reached during the 50 to 60 days of negotiation, they did achieve a decisive breakthrough during those critical hours of direct talks.
He noted that while the signed memorandum of understanding initially allocated a 30-day window for lifting the blockade, the implementation actually occurred that very night. He pointed to Trump’s immediate tweet announcing the removal of the naval blockade on Iran as evidence.
Ghalibaf added that this development successfully reopened the Strait of Hormuz, ending the halt in maritime shipping, though he immediately called for a more detailed review and refinement of the strait’s specific operational rules.
He recalled telling Vance directly in Islamabad that Iran entered the negotiations with absolute distrust due to America’s long history of betrayal against the Iranian nation both before and after the 1953 coup and throughout the war. However, he emphasized that while they engaged with good faith, they spoke from a position of authority.
Ghalibaf argued that this authority was proven by how quickly the US President was forced to yield to the framework of the memorandum, amend his stance, and announce that implementation would begin on Saturday. He asserted that such powerful negotiation is impossible without battlefield dominance and military strength.
Informed Source: Bloomberg’s Alleged Text of U.S.-Iran Memorandum is Inaccurate
WANA (Jun 17) – A source close to the Iranian negotiating team has dismissed the accuracy of a document published by Bloomberg, which purports to be the full text of the upcoming memorandum of understanding (MoU) between Iran and the United States, colloquially referred to as the “Islamabad Accord.” The source stated that the […]
However, he noted that military power cannot achieve such massive strategic objectives through warmongering alone. He reasoned that if Iran had attempted to break the blockade strictly through fighting, it would have required a conflict far greater than the 38-day war, yet the objective was realized in a single night under the deterrent shadow of their missiles.
Enforcement Through Reciprocity and External Observers
Ghalibaf stated that reciprocal action is explicitly defined under clause thirteen, adding that they have established a mechanism for observers. He explained that the parties must mutually agree on the specific individuals to act as monitors, and they may also agree on third-country mediators.
He assured that if the other side fails to act, Iran will not fulfill its side of the bargain, emphasizing that if the opposing parties default on their commitments, it is absolutely impossible for Iran to honor its own.
He mentioned that one of the adversary’s ultimate goals had been regime change, an effort in which even some countries considered friends of Iran had quietly aligned. He recalled that during the first 20 days of the conflict, many external observers assumed Iran was entirely defeated.
However, Ghalibaf asserted that the Islamic Republic has now demonstrated its true capabilities to all global nations and governments. He stated that they will utilize this recognized strength to operationalize the commitments, but reiterated that any breach by the enemy would lead to an immediate halt of Iranian compliance.
Western Acknowledgement of American Failure
Ghalibaf stated that Western analysts themselves have explicitly characterized the memorandum of understanding as a defeat for the United States.
Addressing domestic skepticism, he mentioned that colleagues had worried that the Americans might drag their feet and fail to lift the blockade within the designated 30 days. He explained that it was precisely for this reason that they spent hours debating and successfully inserting the phrase “completely” into the text to secure the legal dimensions of the agreement, attributing the outcome to divine grace and their rigorous efforts.
Has the War Ended?!
WANA (Jun 16) – The stated objective of the memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States is to bring an end to the conflict on all fronts, including Lebanon. Attention is now focused more than anywhere else on Lebanon, where it will become clear whether Israel is prepared to halt military operations. […]
Commendations and Collective Unity
Ghalibaf expressed his hope to successfully advance the path laid out by the late Imam Khomeini and the Supreme Leader. He extended his gratitude to the public for their cohesion, support, and both justified and unjustified criticisms.
He admitted that security restrictions had limited his ability to speak directly with the people, but revealed that he had frequently moved among them unrecognized during the crisis to observe the situation firsthand. He noted that he received public feedback through direct conversations, field reports, and colleagues.
He praised the government and the judiciary for maintaining genuine unity throughout the crisis. He also extended his appreciation to the six-member negotiating team, specifically thanking Dr. Araghchi. Ghalibaf stated that they sincerely accept the serious domestic criticisms raised against certain issues and remain hopeful that the decisions underway will secure a victory for the country.
He concluded by stating that all of Iran’s diplomatic power and logic are directly owed to the armed forces, including the Army, the IRGC, law enforcement, and the Basij, whose magnanimity they witnessed on the ground. He promised that although he no longer serves directly in their military ranks, he will fully support and defend their sacrifices within political and legal forums.
