Contradiction in Ali Khamenei's statements about dialogue with America

While negotiations are taking place under the shadow of threats, Khamenei's words have added to the complexity and contradictions of the diplomatic path.

As the second round of talks between Iran and the United States were held in Geneva with the mediation of Oman, Ali Khamenei took a strong stance against Washington in a speech today, Tuesday, February 17, rejecting any "pre-determination of the outcome" on the one hand and accompanied by military threats and ideological rhetoric on the other.

The leader of the Islamic Republic, Ali Khamenei, described pre-determining the outcome of the talks as “wrong and foolish,” and said that if the goal of the talks is to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, such an issue is fundamentally not up for negotiation. Addressing the US president, he stated: “You say let’s talk about this issue and reach an agreement; why are you predetermining the outcome? We must definitely reach this agreement. Well, that’s foolish.”

These statements come at a time when the main disagreement between Tehran and Washington is over the scope of the agreement. Officials of the Islamic Republic insist that they are only willing to discuss limiting the nuclear program if sanctions are lifted, while Donald Trump had previously stated that a "good deal" in his opinion is an agreement that includes a complete halt to the path to acquiring nuclear weapons, curbing the missile program, and some other issues.

Trump announced Tuesday morning that he was indirectly involved in the Geneva talks and warned that if the talks fail, the Islamic Republic would be dealt a severe blow. At the same time, Washington has also dispatched its second aircraft carrier to the region.

The Abraham Lincoln, previously stationed in East Asia, has been transferred to the CENTCOM operational area around the Persian Gulf, and reports indicate a significant increase in US military equipment in the region.

In response to these military moves, Khamenei said, “The ship is, of course, a dangerous device, but more dangerous than the ship is the weapon that can sink it to the bottom of the sea.” He did not provide further details about the weapon, but these remarks have been interpreted by observers as a deterrent message in the midst of negotiations.

In another part of his speech, the Leader of the Islamic Republic claimed that America's goal is to dominate Iran and said: "Imam Hussein said that no one like me will pledge allegiance to someone like Yazid."

These statements come after Mark Rubio said yesterday that decision-making in Iran is based on theological frameworks, which makes it difficult to reach an agreement. Rubio had stated: "It is not easy to make a deal with Iran because the decision-making structure of the Islamic Republic relies on Shiite clerics."

Another part of Khamenei's speech was dedicated to the January protests. Calling those killed martyrs, he said: "Wherever the bullet came from, this happened in the enemy's sedition, and these are martyrs."

This statement for the first time raises the possibility of firing “from anywhere,” a point that contradicts the Islamic Republic’s previous official narrative that protesters were killed by “non-state armed elements.” In recent weeks, numerous images have been released showing the presence of government armed forces and the use of military weapons against protesters.

Khamenei also announced: "We mourn for the blood that was shed." This is despite the fact that he had previously only acknowledged the deaths of several thousand people, without taking a position on the direct responsibility of government forces.

Also, in line with Khamenei's speech on the nuclear issue, the second round of talks in Geneva is taking place while the two sides are still in serious disagreement over the framework of the agreement. The Islamic Republic considers the complete lifting of sanctions a prerequisite for any new restrictions, while the United States wants an agreement that goes beyond the previous frameworks.

In such an environment, the simultaneous combination of "rejection of the predetermined outcome," "military threat," and "ideological reference to religious history" in Ali Khamenei's words presents a contradictory picture of the path forward for diplomacy; a path that, more than ever, is shadowed by distrust and military alignment.