Qalibaf: Iran's Security Hinges on Hormuz Control and Self-Reliance
Qalibaf, Iran's top negotiator, outlined a dual strategy of diplomatic engagement and military readiness, describing the conflict with America as existential. He stressed that national security depends on control of the Strait of Hormuz, self-reliance, and that negotiation forms part of Iran's broader resistance strategy rather than a sign of compromise.

*this image is generated using AI for illustrative purposes only.
Iran's top negotiator, Qalibaf, stated that the nation has never welcomed war but must always be prepared to fight and stand until the end to safeguard its national security and interests. He emphasized the necessity of employing diplomacy and negotiation as tools to realize and secure these interests. The remarks highlight a dual approach of maintaining defensive readiness while pursuing diplomatic avenues. Qalibaf added that the country's armed forces have complete freedom of action to confront the enemy's aggression, and that national security lies in maintaining the Iranian arrangements on the Strait of Hormuz.
Existential War with America
Qalibaf described the current situation as an essential and existential war with America, asserting that the aim of this conflict extends beyond toppling Iran's system to fragmenting the country. This characterization underscores the high stakes perceived by Iranian leadership regarding ongoing geopolitical tensions. He further clarified that negotiation at this stage is not equivalent to compromise but, along with war, forms part of the strategy of resistance and protection of national interests. Qalibaf also noted that the enemy's strategy has not changed, reinforcing the sustained nature of the threat as perceived by Iran.
Strategic Autonomy and Long-Term Approach
Qalibaf emphasized that Iran's approach in war or negotiation must be based on national interests and security, realistic, and long-term. He stated that the nation has no choice but to rely on its own strength and become strong. Regarding international agreements, he declared that if Iran is not going to benefit from a Memorandum of Understanding, there is no reason to adhere to such an understanding.
The following table summarizes the key positions and parameters outlined by Qalibaf:
| Parameter: | Details |
|---|---|
| Official | Qalibaf |
| Role | Iran's Top Negotiator |
| Stance on War | Never welcomed war, but must be ready to fight |
| Strategic Tools | Diplomacy and negotiation |
| Nature of Conflict | Essential and existential war with America |
| Armed Forces | Complete freedom of action to confront aggression |
| Strategic Location | Iranian arrangements on Strait of Hormuz |
| Enemy's Strategy | Has not changed |
| Core Strategy | Rely on own strength and become strong |
| MOU Stance | No reason to adhere if Iran does not benefit |
How might Iran's 'complete freedom of action' for its armed forces impact stability in the Strait of Hormuz?
What specific diplomatic avenues is Iran likely to pursue given its 'existential war' stance with America?
Could Iran's refusal to adhere to unbeneficial MOUs lead to a breakdown in existing international agreements?

























