Leader’s speech shifts ...
Page 1
Iran has repeatedly stated that negotiations only carry weight when they are grounded in mutual respect, a balance of interests, and reciprocal steps—not in imposed or unilateral results. In effect, this stance lays down the conceptual framework and red lines for talks with Washington and shifts the playing field from “pressure for concessions” to “balanced bargaining.” Such a firm position also takes the decision-making space out of a climate shaped by psychological pressure and artificially manufactured security urgency. It signals that Tehran will not make decisions under American deadlines or media narratives portraying the moment as a “last chance.”
As the Leader downplays US military power, how do you assess Iran’s deterrent capacities and tools in the face of US military presence and threats in the region, and how might these factors affect the strategic calculations of the other side?
The Leader’s consistent emphasis on the ineffectiveness of military threats has long formed part of the Islamic Republic’s deterrence equation. Iran’s deterrence architecture is multilayered, combining defensive capabilities, asymmetric capacities, and regional strategic depth.
The timing of these remarks—coinciding with the Geneva talks, which the opposing side had portrayed as a “final opportunity”—amounts to a renewed assertion of Iran’s defensive readiness and strategic confidence. The message is clear: negotiation under the shadow of threat does not hold.
Such resolve would naturally be expected to factor into the adversary’s calculations regarding the potential gains of military escalation. Iran possesses diverse symmetrical and asymmetrical tools for defensive response to any aggression, and any military action against the country could impose broad and unpredictable costs on the United States and its allies. These considerations appear to have influenced Washington’s posture and, at least for now, pushed back the war option.
How can the Leader’s analysis of the recent unrest in Iran be examined within the framework of geopolitical rivalries and maximum pressure strategies against Iran, and what implications does it have for domestic policy and national security?
The narrative of a “planned coup” and hybrid pressure is not presented merely as domestic political rhetoric. Statements by American and Israeli officials and sources have indicated that the United States and Israel played roles in organizing nationwide unrest, managing scenes of disorder, and planning subsequent scenarios.
It should be recalled that during the June war, American and Israeli positions suggested they had expected airstrikes to feed into internal unrest and protests; however, that scenario did not materialize. In the January events as well, efforts were made to intensify unrest and shape media narratives—including hasty remarks by Donald Trump such as the claim of the “fall of Mashhad”—in order to pave the way for complementary actions. The failure of that scenario cast doubt on the prospects of a swift military success.
Accordingly, it is anticipated that a scenario synchronizing domestic unrest with military pressure or threats may remain on the agenda of certain actors. While such overt interference in Iran’s internal affairs carries costs for both society and the state, the strategic culture of Iranian society—rooted in independence and resistance to foreign domination—has itself evolved into a factor that strengthens the country’s social, political, and defensive resilience, and is likely to continue doing so.