Senior Producer at Iran International TV
Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei has dismissed talks with the United States but history shows that his defiance can be a strategic bluff as much as it may be a genuine rejection of negotiation.
On 7th February, Iran’s Supreme Leader unequivocally rejected negotiations with Washington, saying, “Negotiating with a government like the US is neither wise, nor intelligent, nor honorable."
Just ten days earlier, he had cautiously signaled openness to talks. This is what he said.
“We must be mindful of whom we are dealing with, whom we are trading with, and whom we are speaking to—this is something we must know. When a person understands the other party, they may still engage in a transaction, but they will know how to act. We must recognise and be aware.”
How should one interpret Khamenei’s stance on a potential engagement with the US under President Donald Trump? Two hypotheses come to mind.
First, he may secretly be open to negotiations but publicly rejects the idea to maintain a strong front. By doing so, he creates room for backchannel diplomacy while avoiding the perception of weakness.
Alternatively, he may see talks with Trump as an existential threat, believing that it would undermine Iran’s strategic position or ideological foundations. Refusing to talk, in this case, would be more than posturing but a firm line in the sand.
A Strategic Bluff
Strategic bluffing and covert negotiations with the US have long been a cornerstone of Iran's policy, stretching back to the days and weeks before the Islamic Republic was founded.
In 1979, secret negotiations between Iran’s revolutionaries and the United States helped facilitate Ruhollah Khomeini's return while preventing a military coup. Washington sought assurances for the safety of American citizens and the prospect of future cooperation.
Barely a year later, Iran’s foreign minister at the time, Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, held covert talks with President Jimmy Carter’s Chief of Staff, Hamilton Jordan, to negotiate the release of the Americans held hostage in the US embassy in Tehran.
Then came the secret arms deal widely known as the Iran-Contra affair, where the Reagan administration agreed to send American weapons to Iran via Israel.
More recently, Tehran and Washington negotiated secretly in 2013, paving the way for the eventual 2015 nuclear deal with the Obama administration.
The latest alleged instance is Elon Musk holding undisclosed discussions with Iran’s UN representative, Amir-Saeed Iravani, in New York—a reminder that, whatever the rhetoric, real negotiations often happen in the shadows.
As Supreme Leader, Khamenei remains above the law and outside the cycle of direct negotiations. Holding the title of Imam—a designation for the infallible leaders of the Islamic community after the Prophet, as recognized by the majority of Shia Muslims—he embodies both spiritual and political authority.
By positioning himself as both a sovereign and a holy figure, he can maintain consistency in his hostility toward the United States, allow negotiations with it, and when necessary, criticize Iran’s negotiators as if they weren’t under his command.
Anti-Americanism and Anti-Zionism have been cornerstones of the Islamic Republic from the outset. Khamenei’s ongoing enmity with the US is not just political; it is an ideological imperative.
And then there’s President Donald Trump’s patronizing attitude, which Khamenei may view as a direct challenge to his quasi-holy position—something he cannot afford to let pass.
A Genuine Refusal
On the very same day that he floated the idea of negotiating with Tehran, Trump also ordered a return to his so-called maximum pressure on Iran and expressed his desire to take over Gaza.
If these were to materialize, not only further Iran’s ailing economy would be crippled but the Palestinian dream of statehood would be crushed and Khamenei’s plans for a US-free Middle East would end in ruins.
Some, including the Israeli ambassador to the US, have stressed that the only effective way to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions is through a deal akin to the Libyan model, involving the total dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
This is perceived in Tehran as a precursor to regime change by armed force, as was the case with Libya in 2011.
Khamenei may believe he can withstand maximum pressure for another four years, holding out for an administration that’s less assertive with Tehran. The outcome of the US midterm elections could help him with that.
As a sovereign ruler above law, Khamenei grants himself the luxury of time, delaying decisions at will.
“We can only enter the dangerous game of negotiations with the United States when we have achieved the desired level of economic, political, and cultural strength, so that their pressures and propaganda cannot affect us," Khamenei said in 2018.
"However, at present, negotiations would undoubtedly be to our detriment and are strictly forbidden.”
The real danger now lies in prolonged uncertainty. With talks yet to start and the decision to negotiate still in limbo, the threat of war grows ever closer.
However, as long as Khamenei is confident that his absolute sovereignty and the sanctity of his position remain uncontested, the door to US-Iran talks may remain slightly ajar—though always at the risk of being slammed shut at any given moment.
