Trump’s statements about an imminent deal reinforce their sense of victory, while they are shielded from further military strikes.
By Mardo Soghom, Middle East Forum
The Islamic Republic marked the 37th anniversary of the death of its founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, on June 4, 2026, with renewed rhetoric against the United States and Israel.
Officials declared the Islamic Republic to be the victor in the military conflict that started on February 28, 2026, and said Washington must submit to Tehran’s will.
“Iran has been able to impose its will on the American-Zionist enemy and maintain the upper hand in the conflict. The same applies to the Lebanese front, where the resistance, despite its limited resources, has stood firm on the battlefield and achieved even greater victories than in the past,” the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-affiliated Tasnim wrote.
Since President Donald Trump declared a ceasefire, rhetoric from Tehran has grown increasingly defiant.
The Islamic Republic has largely denied normal commercial access to the Strait of Hormuz and repeatedly violated the ceasefire through attacks on U.S. and allied military and civilian targets, often without meaningful retaliation.
Yet Trump continues to express optimism about reaching a deal, despite little evidence that one is within reach.
Reflecting the tone of official rhetoric in Tehran, Deputy Parliament Speaker Hamidreza Hajibabaee referred to the United States as “criminal America” and portrayed ongoing negotiations as an opportunity for Iran to dictate terms following what he described as a US defeat.
He argued that Washington must accept ten conditions set by the supreme leader, including the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the region, the lifting of sanctions, compensation payments to Iran, and Iranian oversight of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.
He also insisted that support for the “resistance” axis remained beyond negotiation.
These conditions negate most of Trump’s original demands and if he starts to compromise on key issues, such as uranium enrichment, ballistic missiles, Tehran’s support for proxies, and now the status of the Hormuz, the Islamic Republic will win major concessions.
During the June 4 ceremonies, a cleric read out a speech on behalf of the new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, who has not been seen since his father’s February 28 death nor heard from directly.
The message focused on renewing commitment with the teachings of the two previous supreme leaders, who were vehemently anti-America, anti-West, and anti-Israel.
There was no hint of a new era, a slight change of policy, or a sign of compromise.
This negates the Trump administration’s insistence that a different leadership exists in Iran, with whom they can negotiate.
In this message, Khomeini and Ali Khamenei were presented as representatives of God’s will, who led the “divine revolt” against usurpers and imperialists, and proved that the United States has a problem with “the Islamic nation of Iran.”
The United States, which has lost the current conflict, is pursuing two objectives, the message said. First, it seeks to break the will of the Iranian people and, second, it hopes to trigger a miscalculation by decision-makers in Iran.
Given that the official line is to not retreat from Tehran’s demands, “miscalculation” means any temptation to compromise.
Whether or not Mojtaba Khamenei is alive or in control, the operatives who speak on his behalf seem to be basking in what they see as a cornered United States.
Trump’s statements about an imminent deal reinforce their sense of victory, while they are shielded from further military strikes.
In a passage in the speech alleged to be the young Khamenei’s message, the sense of historic triumphalism is evident: A new opportunity has emerged to promote and realize the teachings of Khomeini and Khamenei as the oppressed yet powerful—and ultimately victorious—leaders of the Islamic Revolution throughout the world.
The United States and other Western governments have spent years trying to reinterpret the Islamic Republic’s stated objectives in more moderate terms and searching for evidence that its ambitions can be accommodated.
The regime’s leaders, however, have repeatedly explained their goals in clear language.
Rather than dismissing such statements as domestic propaganda, Western policymakers should consider the possibility that Tehran means what it says.
