Better we end the war now, says Iranian president

Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian has called for an end to the ongoing conflict with the United States, asserting that Tehran is in a position of strength and dignity to conclude peace talks. Speaking during a meeting with medical staff, Pezeshkian emphasized that the time is ripe to terminate nearly six months of hostilities, which have left both nations in a state of prolonged tension. He claimed that global recognition of Iran’s success and the widespread condemnation of U.S. actions, targeting hospitals, schools, and infrastructure, have created favorable conditions for dialogue. Pezeshkian also reiterated that the June memorandum of understanding with U.S. representatives does not signify defeat for Iran, but rather reflects mutual commitments without implying submission. The situation remains stalled on both fronts, with Iran maintaining partial closure of the strategic Strait of Hormuz and the United States continuing its naval countermeasures. While diplomatic efforts continue, the lack of progress underscores the deepening impasse. Pezeshkian’s remarks come amid heightened internal divisions within Iran’s leadership, as factions advocating for more flexible policies clash with hardline elements who view any concession to Western powers as ideological betrayal. The new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, endorsed the peace agreement, citing national stability as a priority despite acknowledging divergent opinions within the clerical and military establishment. This internal rift became evident when influential lawmakers aligned with hardliners criticized Pezeshkian, accusing his administration of yielding to foreign pressure and making unacceptable concessions to the United States. These critics, particularly ultraorthodox figures, argue that the decision to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a vital geopolitical asset, constitutes a loss of sovereign control and undermines Iran’s strategic leverage. The disagreement highlights a broader struggle within Iran’s political structure, where pragmatic leaders seek to ease international sanctions and mitigate domestic discontent, while conservative forces remain steadfast in their opposition to compromise. This polarization complicates the nation’s ability to pursue unified foreign policy, especially in light of regional instability and economic hardship. Pezeshkian’s push for resolution appears to align with a growing faction that believes continued confrontation risks further damaging Iran’s standing and security interests. Meanwhile, the U.S. maintains its stance on maritime restrictions in the Gulf, viewing Iranian actions as destabilizing. Washington continues to assert that its interventions are necessary to safeguard international trade routes and deter aggression. The absence of clear progress in negotiations suggests that neither side is willing to make significant concessions, leaving the path toward deescalation uncertain. As tensions linger, the fate of the peace initiative will likely depend on whether Iran can navigate its internal discord and present a coherent strategy that balances national sovereignty with the need for diplomacy. With the region teetering on the edge of further escalation, the coming weeks will reveal whether Pezeshkian’s call for peace gains traction or is overshadowed by persistent political infighting.