WANA (Apr 17) – According to the Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Seyed Mojtaba Khamenei, what currently exists on the military battlefield is merely a pause, not a ceasefire.

 

He deliberately avoided using the term “ceasefire” because, in reality, no such ceasefire exists. From the very first hours after it was announced, the opposing side violated it: the brutal attack on Beirut, the strikes on Iran’s facilities in Lavan and Siri, and the U.S. naval blockade that came into effect on Monday all demonstrate that there is no real ceasefire in place.

 

Many are asking why this situation has emerged—especially those who stood in the streets for forty consecutive nights under bombardment so that the country could endure. It is only natural that the mere mention of negotiations with the United States causes deep concern.

 

Over the past year, there have been two rounds of negotiations with the U.S., and the outcome is clear: on both occasions, the U.S. attacked Iran. This public concern is entirely justified and grounded in experience.

 

Iran’s late Supreme Leader had stated that “negotiating with the United States, even on the nuclear issue, is a complete dead end.” The fact that negotiations are conducted under the approval of the Supreme National Security Council and with the endorsement of the Leader does not eliminate these concerns; they remain real and understandable.

People attend a funeral ceremony for the Head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards’ intelligence organisation, Majid Khademi, who was killed in strikes, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, April 8, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

The key question, then, is: what should be done? The answer lies in what the Leader emphasized for the ceremony marking the fortieth day since the killing of those who died in this war. The most important factor that gave Iran the upper hand was the presence of the people in the streets and their support for the Islamic system and the armed forces.

 

He warned against assuming that negotiations or the relative silence on the battlefield mean that public presence is no longer necessary. On the contrary, at this moment, public presence is even more critical, and people’s slogans can influence the outcome of negotiations. It is the people who ultimately shape the direction of the talks—whether they lead to an agreement, collapse, or no deal at all.

 

The United States sitting at the negotiating table today is the same United States as a year ago—unchanged in both nature and conduct. Therefore, the martyred Imam’s key statement—that negotiating with the U.S. is a dead end—remains valid. To assess the success or failure of negotiations, three major objectives emphasized by the Leader must be achieved:

 

First, the aggressor must not go unpunished. This war was imposed on Iran, and those responsible must be held accountable. At the forefront is the United States, described as the head of the opposing front, which must be deterred and made to regret its actions. The past year has been costly, even resulting in the martyrdom of the Imam.

 

Next, as long as the Israeli regime retains military capability, it remains a direct threat to Iran. Following that are the regional allies of the U.S. and the Israeli regime—namely certain Arab states of the Persian Gulf—that were complicit in the aggression.

A man holds a picture of the late Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on a street in Tehran, Iran, April 12, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

From this perspective, achieving these objectives appears possible only through military confrontation. Even now, the United States has imposed a naval blockade and is deploying forces in preparation for further actions. It seems that nothing short of military engagement can resolve this situation.

 

Second, compensation. The aggressors must pay for the damages inflicted on Iran and the Axis of Resistance. The Leader has stated that these damages will either be recovered, seized, or reciprocated with equivalent force.

 

Third, maintaining and managing control over the Strait of Hormuz, which has now become a strategic asset for Iran. This issue has evolved into part of the country’s national identity and must not be overlooked. If negotiations can secure and formalize this position, all the better; otherwise, Iran will continue on its own path.

 

At this critical juncture, the informed and concerned presence of the public is vital. While the country’s negotiators are respected, there is no trust in the adversary and past negotiations have left a bitter legacy. The people must remain present, attentive, and discerning about where to focus. Ultimately, the Leader’s position remains the final word.