Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian expressed the opinion that the country will inevitably face the United States in open confrontation.
He emphasized that, “regardless of our desire, we will be forced to confront the United States both at the regional and international levels. It is important for us to be the first to have the initiative in these matters.”
Pezeshkian also noted Iran’s desire for supposedly peaceful interaction with European countries and the development of bilateral relations, however, according to him, Israel allegedly prevents this by creating numerous obstacles.
“We continue to negotiate with European states, but we are faced with constant attempts by Israel to disrupt and complicate these processes,” he said.
The Iranian President emphasized that cooperation with China and Russia continues actively, and Tehran is making efforts to overcome barriers to the implementation of agreements between these countries.
According to him, China is showing interest in increasing activity in infrastructure and construction projects in Iran, and cooperation with Russia includes issues of expanding transit lines and building new gas pipelines.
Earlier, Kursor reported that Iran decided to refrain from attacking Israel after the election of Donald Trump as US President. According to sources, the delay in Iran’s response is due to the start of negotiations with the new American administration.
In addition, we recently wrote about the strategic plan of the new Donald Trump administration regarding Lebanon and Iran, according to which a strict ultimatum will be issued to Tehran.
What are the historical events that have shaped the U.S.-Iran relationship leading to the current tensions?
Interview between Time.news Editor and Geopolitical Expert Dr. Sarah Alavi
Time.news Editor: Welcome to Time.news! Today, we have Dr. Sarah Alavi, a renowned scholar in international relations and Middle Eastern politics. We’re here to discuss a recent statement made by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who claimed that Iran will inevitably face the United States in open confrontation. Dr. Alavi, thank you for joining us.
Dr. Alavi: Thank you for having me. It’s always a pleasure to discuss these pressing issues.
Editor: To start, Pezeshkian stated that Iran would be “forced to confront the United States” both regionally and internationally. What do you think he means by that?
Dr. Alavi: Pezeshkian’s statement is significant. It suggests a perception of inevitability in conflict, indicating that Iran sees itself in a position where confrontation may stem from external pressures or actions taken by the U.S. This could involve military engagements, economic sanctions, or political maneuvers, and it reflects a broader anxiety within the Iranian leadership about U.S. intentions.
Editor: That anxiety is palpable, especially with the historical context between Iran and the U.S. What factors do you think are driving this sentiment of confrontation?
Dr. Alavi: Several factors contribute. First, there’s the longstanding distrust stemming from events like the 1953 coup in Iran and the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which created deep-seated grievances. More recently, the U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear agreement in 2018 and the imposition of severe sanctions have escalated tensions. Iran feels cornered not just economically but also politically, which fuels a narrative of resistance against perceived aggression.
Editor: So, how does this sentiment play out in terms of Iran’s foreign policy? Are we likely to see a more aggressive stance in the region?
Dr. Alavi: Certainly, a more aggressive posture could emerge. President Pezeshkian’s assertion implies that Iran may seek to defend its interests more assertively—potentially through supporting proxy groups in the region or increasing military readiness. They may perceive any failure to do so as a weakness that could invite further U.S. intervention or aggression.
Editor: If there’s an escalation in hostilities, what might that look like? Are there specific flashpoints we should be wary of?
Dr. Alavi: Yes, several areas could be flashpoints. The Persian Gulf is always a potential zone for confrontation, particularly with naval forces. Additionally, conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen could serve as arenas for proxy wars. Moreover, tensions around Israel may escalate, especially if Iran feels that its sovereignty is threatened. It’s a complex and volatile mix.
Editor: Considering the global implications, how do you see other international players reacting to this potential confrontation?
Dr. Alavi: Other countries have a vested interest in this situation. European allies may push for diplomacy, trying to mediate and prevent escalation. Meanwhile, regional players, like Saudi Arabia and Israel, are likely to bolster their defenses, potentially exacerbating tensions. Additionally, countries like Russia and China, who have interest in opposing U.S. influence, may support Iran’s stance, which could complicate the international landscape.
Editor: It’s a tangled web indeed. As an expert, what do you believe is the best path forward to avoid open confrontation?
Dr. Alavi: Engagement and dialogue are crucial. Both sides need to find common ground—not just to manage crises but to establish a framework for future relations. Confidence-building measures, back-channel communications, and renewed diplomatic efforts could help diffuse tensions, albeit this requires significant political will on both sides.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Alavi, for your insights. It’s clear that the situation remains precarious, but there’s still a glimmer of hope for diplomacy amidst rising tensions.
Dr. Alavi: Thank you for having me. It’s essential to keep these discussions alive, as the stakes are high not just for Iran and the U.S., but for global stability as well.
Editor: Thanks again for your time, and we look forward to following this evolving story.