In a forceful address delivered on 3 November 2025, marking the anniversary of the 1979 takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared that the conflict between Iran and the United States is “fundamental and intrinsic”, and cannot be resolved through negotiations under current conditions.
Khamenei stated that any future cooperation with Washington would only be conceivable if the United States completely withdrew its military presence from the Middle East and ended its support for Israel.
He stressed that as long as the U.S. maintains bases in the region, interferes in regional affairs, and backs the Israeli occupation, dialogue remains impossible.
Addressing thousands of students in Tehran, Khamenei explained that hostility between Iran and the U.S. “began before the Islamic Revolution and continued after it,” adding that Washington once viewed pre-revolutionary Iran as a “sweet morsel snatched from its mouth” after losing dominance over Iran’s wealth and destiny.
Rising Tensions Amid Economic Collapse
Khamenei’s remarks came as President Donald Trump’s administration intensified pressure on Iran. He was quoted by Iranian state media as saying, “The Americans sometimes claim they want cooperation, but that is impossible as long as they support the Zionist regime, keep their bases, and interfere in regional affairs.”
His uncompromising tone comes amid severe domestic crises and rare public criticism from former officials inside Iran.
Since Trump’s return to power, Iran’s economy has suffered a dramatic collapse — the toman has lost about 75% of its value within a year, reaching 920,000 per U.S. dollar. Inflation has surged past 40%, while per capita income has fallen to around $4,500 annually.
Due to intensified U.S. sanctions, Iran’s oil sector has lost billions, unemployment among youth has soared to 34.9%, and more than 41 million Iranians have reportedly exited the labour force.
This deep economic deterioration — despite Tehran’s tough rhetoric — could, analysts say, push Iran back to the negotiating table in hopes of easing the suffocating economic pressure.
Khamenei’s Non-Negotiable Conditions
The Iranian leader outlined three uncompromising conditions for any potential cooperation with Washington:
- Ending all U.S. support for Israel
- Removing all American military bases from the region
- Halting all interference in regional affairs
He made clear that these conditions were “for the distant future, not the near term,” signalling a total rejection of diplomacy for now.
In contrast, President Trump said last month that the United States was ready to strike a deal with Iran “when Tehran is ready,” declaring that “our hand of friendship and cooperation remains extended.”
Both nations previously held five rounds of nuclear talks before the 12-day war between Iran and Israel in June, in which Washington participated indirectly by targeting key Iranian nuclear facilities.
However, those negotiations repeatedly stumbled — particularly over Iran’s uranium enrichment programme. Western powers demanded it be reduced to zero to prevent weaponisation, while Tehran refused.
On 20 October, Khamenei rejected a fresh proposal from Trump for renewed talks, denying Trump’s claim that the U.S. had “destroyed Iran’s nuclear capabilities.”
Khamenei responded: “Trump calls himself a dealmaker, but if a deal comes with coercion and a pre-set outcome, it is not a deal — it is imposition and domination.”
He reiterated that “negotiations with Washington will not serve Iran’s interests.”
The Shifting U.S. Approach Toward Iran
The 1979 Islamic Revolution marked a decisive turning point in U.S.–Iran relations. Ties between the two countries have remained strained since, despite periodic attempts at dialogue.
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Washington briefly floated the idea of opening communication channels with governments that opposed its policies — including Iran. But by 2004, the U.S. had launched the so-called “Greater Middle East Project,” a political and economic framework widely seen as serving American and Israeli interests — which Iran firmly rejected.
As U.S. ambitions in the region faltered, Washington eventually signed the 2015 nuclear agreement (JCPOA) with Tehran. Yet in May 2018, President Trump officially withdrew from the deal and reimposed sweeping sanctions on Iran, reigniting confrontation.
Most countries around the world criticised the move, warning that America’s “containment policy” toward Iran would only deepen global instability.
Bilateral Relations and Their Impact on the Middle East
A study by the Arab Democratic Center titled “U.S.–Iran Relations (2016–2025) and Their Impact on Middle East Stability” found that ties between Washington and Tehran have gone through sharp fluctuations over the past decade — from relative understanding under Barack Obama, to escalation under Donald Trump, and conditional de-escalation under Joe Biden.
The report concluded that these shifts have directly affected Middle Eastern stability, with sanctions and Iranian counteractions fuelling regional tension and weakening security structures across neighbouring states.
The U.S. Withdrawal from the Nuclear Deal
According to the same study, Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA represented a strategic rupture. It reinstated harsh economic sanctions, prompting Iran to resume controversial nuclear activities and scale back compliance.
This decision eroded mutual trust and reduced prospects for a lasting diplomatic resolution, while intensifying hostile rhetoric between both sides.
Divergent Strategies: Trump vs. Biden
The Arab Democratic Center highlighted stark differences between the Trump and Biden administrations:
- Trump pursued a policy of “maximum pressure” through sanctions and diplomatic isolation.
- Biden sought to revive the nuclear accord through cautious diplomacy — though he largely retained the same leverage tools.
Yet, despite these contrasting approaches, no breakthrough emerged. Relations remained defined by mistrust, caution, and intermittent talks that failed to produce meaningful progress.
Iran’s Regional Influence and U.S. Policy Impact
The study observed that U.S. sanctions did not weaken Iran’s regional influence; instead, they pushed Tehran to expand its presence across conflict zones by supporting aligned groups and movements in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon.
This widening footprint intensified regional polarisation and compounded the instability of already fragile states.
The Road Ahead: Escalation or Negotiation?
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy noted that Iran has long pursued a “nuclear hedging strategy” — pausing or reversing parts of its programme when necessary to protect broader interests.
This ambiguity, it argued, offers limited opportunities for U.S. diplomacy — but also heightens the risks of confrontation.
Looking forward, analysts at the Arab Democratic Center predict that U.S.–Iran relations are likely headed toward renewed escalation if Washington continues its hardline approach. Any further sanctions or proxy confrontations could exacerbate regional instability and heighten the risk of conflict between Iran, Israel, and Gulf states.
The study concluded that the relationship between Tehran and Washington remains bound by overlapping strategic interests and ideological enmity — stretching far beyond the nuclear file.
The 2018 U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear deal, it said, returned the relationship to a cycle of confrontation, deepened global divisions over Iran, and shrank the space for diplomatic solutions.
Between Rhetoric and Reality
Khamenei’s latest speech sends a clear message: Iran will not submit to American conditions, and the conflict between the two nations remains “original and enduring” unless Washington radically changes course.
Yet behind this defiant rhetoric, Iran faces unprecedented internal and strategic crises that may, eventually, compel it back toward negotiation — if only to survive.
