On February 7, during the celebrations of the Ten Days of Dawn marking the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, the Leader met with commanders of the air force and air defense. In this significant address, he outlined Iran’s key strategic stance on recent international developments and reiterated the country's firm principles regarding the latest remarks and actions of the U.S. president. He emphasized that negotiating with the United States is "neither rational, nor wise, nor honorable."
Trump’s repeated calls for talks with Iran
On Tuesday, during a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington, U.S. President Donald Trump once again expressed his “willingness” to engage in talks with Iran, stating that he "would like to reach a great deal."
A look at past U.S.-Iran negotiations and JCPOA agreement
In his speech this morning, the Leader reflected on the negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 during the 11th and 12th administrations, which led to the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). He remarked:
"In the 2010s, we sat down for negotiations with the United States. For about two years, an agreement was formed—not just with the U.S., but with several other countries. However, the U.S. was the main party in these talks. Our government at the time sat with them, went back and forth and engaged in negotiations, laughed, shook hands, acted friendly [towards them], and did everything, and an agreement was formed in which the Iranian side, with great generosity, granted many concessions to the other side. However, the Americans did not honor that very agreement. The very person who is currently in office tore up the treaty. He said he would, and he did; they did not act."
Trump’s contradictory statements: Talks and pressure at the same time
During a Tuesday press conference attended by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump adopted a dual approach—speaking of negotiations while simultaneously emphasizing continued pressure. He stated, "I would like to meet with my Iranian counterpart to convince Iran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons." Yet immediately afterward, he claimed, "Iran is too close to obtaining nuclear weapons, and the United States has the right to block Iran’s oil sales to other countries."
This blatant contradiction reveals that the White House remains committed to its maximum pressure policy and that the offer of negotiations serves merely as a cover for the continuation of this strategy.
Leader’s criticism of U.S. approach to negotiations
In response to such behavior and reflecting on past negotiations with the U.S., the Leader criticized Washington’s approach, stating:
"This is an experience—let’s learn from it. We made concessions, we negotiated, we compromised, but we did not achieve the intended result. And yet, despite all the flaws in that agreement, the other party violated it, tore it apart, and rendered it worthless."
Trump’s stance on sanctions and his emphasis on economic pressure
During the same press conference on Tuesday, Trump also claimed to "hate sanctions," yet at the same time, he signed a new executive order imposing further economic pressure on Iran. He stated, "This is an order I am hesitant about… It’s very tough on Iran. It’s essentially what we had before."
This stance underscores that Washington remains committed to using economic tools to pressure Tehran. In contrast, the Leader reaffirmed Iran’s strategy of self-reliance, emphasizing:
"Our problems must be solved internally, not through negotiations with the U.S."
This stark difference in perspective highlights a strategic confrontation—one that indicates Iran no longer holds any expectation for a shift in U.S. policy and is determined to continue its path without reliance on the West.
Iran’s firm response to Trump’s threats
During his press conference, Trump once again employed a policy of threats and incentives. While expressing his willingness to “make a deal with Iran,” he implicitly warned that pressure would intensify if Tehran did not comply. He stated:
"I hope we don’t have to use it too much. We’ll see if we can work something out, maybe make a deal with Iran, and that way we can all get along. Maybe it’s possible, maybe it’s not. So, I’m signing this, and I’m not happy about it, but I don’t have much of a choice because we have to be strong and firm. I hope we don’t have to use it too much."
These remarks reflect Washington’s continued commitment to its maximum pressure strategy—one aimed at forcing Iran to the negotiating table from a position of weakness. However, today’s statement by the Leader made Iran’s approach to such threats unmistakably clear. In a firm response, he declared:
"If they threaten us, we will threaten them. If they carry out their threat, we will carry out our threat. And if they disrupt the security of our nation, we will definitely disrupt their security as well."
Iran’s roadmap in the face of U.S. threats
This stance sends a clear message to the White House: Iran will not surrender to Washington’s pressure, and any hostile action will be met with a decisive and proportionate response. In essence, Iran’s strategy against these threats is not to negotiate from a position of weakness but to strengthen internal capabilities and enhance deterrence against external pressure.
Netanyahu’s support for Trump’s Iran strategy
Trump’s press conference also featured Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a long-time advocate of maximum pressure on Iran. Netanyahu endorsed Trump’s stance, stating:
"Trump and I will ensure that Iran never develops nuclear weapons."
This statement underscores the full alignment between Washington and Tel Aviv in their strategy to contain Iran. However, Iran has repeatedly affirmed that its nuclear program is strictly peaceful—whereas Israel, which possesses a stockpile of nuclear weapons, refuses to allow any international oversight.
A strategy of smart resistance against diplomatic deception
The Leader’s remarks today once again highlighted that Iran’s policy toward the United States is not based on optimism or the expectation of a shift in Washington’s approach. Rather, it is rooted in the lessons learned from the costly negotiations of the 1990s. His assertion that “Negotiating with the U.S. is neither rational, nor wise, nor honorable” was a clear message to those who still believe that diplomacy alone—without considering the balance of power—can secure national interests.
Meanwhile, Trump, following his usual approach, spoke of his willingness to negotiate while simultaneously escalating threats and maximum pressure. He vaguely hinted at the possibility of a deal but, at the same time, warned that if Iran did not comply, pressure would increase. This contradiction is a continuation of Washington’s longstanding strategy: psychological warfare aimed at extracting concessions from Tehran without offering any real guarantees of upholding agreements.
NOURNEWS