President Pezeshkian has made it clear that Tehran will not be intimidated by what he characterises as Western bullying. Responding to rhetoric from Washington – specifically what Iranian state media has termed a “surrender ultimatum” reminiscent of the Trump era’s maximum pressure campaign – Pezeshkian remained resolute. “We won’t bow our heads,” he declared, framing the US presence not as a stabilising force, but as an extension of historical exploitation and colonialism.
For Tehran, the Strait of Hormuz is not just a geographical asset; it is a sovereign shield. The President’s rhetoric reflects a deep-seated belief that regional security should be managed by regional players, without the interference of “extra-regional” powers. This defiance is backed by a perceived moral high ground, as Pezeshkian frequently cites the long history of “hostile acts” by Washington as the primary reason for Iran’s absolute mistrust of the United States.
Strategic Brotherhood: The Iraq-Iran Bonding
While Iran projects a hard power stance toward the West, its soft power and diplomatic efforts are focused heavily on its neighbours, most notably Iraq. President Pezeshkian recently reaffirmed what he calls a “strategic brotherhood” with Baghdad during a series of high-level meetings with Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani.
This relationship is pivotal for several reasons:
- Economic Integration: Iraq remains one of Iran’s most significant trading partners, particularly in the energy sector.
- Security Cooperation: Both nations share a mutual interest in combating extremist groups and managing border security to prevent regional spillover.
- Diplomatic Mediation: Iraq has increasingly positioned itself as a bridge between Iran and the Arab world, as well as a facilitator for dialogue with the West.
The Iranian administration’s skepticism toward the US is not merely rhetorical; it is a foundational element of its foreign policy. In discussions with international observers and media outlets like Tasnim News, Pezeshkian pointed to Washington’s withdrawal from the JCPOA (the nuclear deal) and the subsequent imposition of “crippling” sanctions as evidence of a partner that cannot be trusted
Pezeshkian’s focus on Iraq is a clear signal that Iran seeks to create a “united front” in the Middle East. By strengthening ties with Baghdad, Tehran effectively creates a buffer against Western-led sanctions and diplomatic isolation. The President has emphasised that the two nations are bound by “blood, religion, and history,” suggesting that their cooperation is a natural imperative that surpasses political cycles.
The Global Stage: Mistrust and New Alliances
The Iranian administration’s skepticism toward the US is not merely rhetorical; it is a foundational element of its foreign policy. In discussions with international observers and media outlets like Tasnim News, Pezeshkian pointed to Washington’s withdrawal from the JCPOA (the nuclear deal) and the subsequent imposition of “crippling” sanctions as evidence of a partner that cannot be trusted.
However, Iran is not looking to remain isolated. While it rejects the West, it is leaning towards the “East.” Through outlets like the Global Times, it is evident that Iran is seeking closer alignment with the BRICS nations and China. This “Look East” policy is designed to diversify Iran’s economic dependencies and provide a geopolitical counterweight to the US dollar and Western financial systems.
This ideological stance resonates with a domestic base that has suffered under decades of economic hardship. By framing the struggle as one of “dignity over surrender,” the administration attempts to consolidate internal support even as the cost of living rises. The President’s rhetoric suggests that the “head of the resistance” (Iran) will continue to support its allies in the “Axis of Resistance” across Lebanon, Yemen, and Syria
In conversations with French leaders and other European representatives, Pezeshkian has maintained a door for dialogue but with a heavy caveat: peace in the region is only possible if the West acknowledges Iran’s legitimate security concerns and halts its policy of “colonial exploitation.” He argues that the root cause of Middle Eastern instability is not Iranian influence, but the “interventionist policies” of foreign powers who seek to control the region’s resources.
The Human and Ideological Cost
At the core of Pezeshkian’s message is a rejection of what he calls the “master-slave” dynamic of international relations. He frames Iran’s struggle as a moral one – a fight against modern-day colonialism where powerful nations use economic sanctions as “silent weapons of mass destruction.”
This ideological stance resonates with a domestic base that has suffered under decades of economic hardship. By framing the struggle as one of “dignity over surrender,” the administration attempts to consolidate internal support even as the cost of living rises. The President’s rhetoric suggests that the “head of the resistance” (Iran) will continue to support its allies in the “Axis of Resistance” across Lebanon, Yemen, and Syria, viewing these movements as legitimate responses to foreign aggression.
The Strait of Hormuz remains the most dangerous point of contact. As Iran refuses to bow to what it sees as surrender ultimatums, the risk of miscalculation between IRGC naval forces and the US Fifth Fleet remains high. However, Pezeshkian’s strategy is clear: Iran will not return to the negotiating table from a position of weakness
A Crossroads for the Persian Gulf
The current trajectory of Iranian foreign policy under Masoud Pezeshkian is one of calculated defiance. By doubling down on regional alliances – specifically the “strategic brotherhood” with Iraq – Tehran is attempting to build a regional ecosystem that can withstand Western pressure.
The Strait of Hormuz remains the most dangerous point of contact. As Iran refuses to bow to what it sees as surrender ultimatums, the risk of miscalculation between IRGC naval forces and the US Fifth Fleet remains high. However, Pezeshkian’s strategy is clear: Iran will not return to the negotiating table from a position of weakness. Instead, it will continue to leverage its strategic geography and regional partnerships to demand a new world order – one where “colonialism and exploitation” are replaced by regional sovereignty and mutual respect.
For the international community, the challenge lies in navigating this “mistrust.” Without a clear path toward de-escalation, the “strategic brotherhoods” of the East may continue to harden against the alliances of the West, leaving the Strait of Hormuz as a permanent tinderbox in the global economy.
-The writer is a New Delhi-based senior commentator on international and strategic affairs, environmental issues, an interfaith practitioner, and a media consultant. The views expressed are personal and do not necessarily carry the views of Raksha Anirveda
