"Negotiation is a method of struggle": Iran's Ghalibaf defends continuing US talks amid ceasefire breach
Tehran, July 1
Defending Tehran's decision to continue high-stakes diplomatic engagement with the United States in Switzerland despite escalating tensions, Iran's Parliament Speaker and chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, firmly declared that diplomacy does not imply weakness or friendship.
Speaking in a televised interview on Tuesday following his return from the Lake Lucerne Summit at the Burgenstock resort, Ghalibaf pushed back against domestic and regional critics who slammed Iran for engaging with Washington while Israeli military actions persist in Lebanon.
"I have said many times that negotiation is a method of struggle," Ghalibaf asserted. "Even now, when we are negotiating with America, we are not negotiating with a friend; we are negotiating with a malicious enemy who will definitely take action against us whenever he finds an opportunity."
Ghalibaf revealed that the primary achievement of the Burgenstock talks was a concrete framework to stabilise borders and enforce Lebanese sovereignty. Rejecting alternative security blueprints discussed in Washington--which Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem and other Lebanese leaders rejected as unconstitutional attempts to turn the Lebanese army into an extension of Israeli security--Tehran and Washington hammered out a separate oversight mechanism.
According to ISNA news agency, speaking in a televised interview on Tuesday, Ghalibaf said the meetings in Burgenstock resort were aimed at implementing the first phase of the 14-point MoU.
"We went to Burgenstock, Switzerland, to discuss the implementation of Article 13 of the Memorandum of Understanding. Article 13 concerns the implementation of Articles 1, 4, 5, 10, and 11, which, out of the total of 14 clauses of the Memorandum of Understanding, must begin, or some of them must be completed," he said.
Iran, the United States, and Lebanon have agreed to form a joint committee to directly oversee the implementation of the war's end. Ghalibaf confirmed he has already coordinated with Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, and both Iran and the US have designated their representatives to begin work immediately.
Ghalibaf argued that the diplomatic trip had already yielded positive results on the ground. "When we went to Burgenstock, the volume of fire, clashes, and the number of martyrs were on a downward trend, and in the past three or four days, it has been almost zero," he noted. "When we can untie a knot with our hands, what is the need to untie it with our teeth? Basically, our trip was to consolidate this trend."
The chief negotiator sought to clarify the exact nature of the Switzerland meetings, emphasising that Iran is not negotiating any new terms or concessions, but rather strictly enforcing the 14-point Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed earlier this year.
He described the current phase as a quadrilateral technical process involving the US and two key regional mediators at the Burgenstock diplomatic table: Iran (Guarantor), the United States (Guarantor), Pakistan (Mediator) and Qatar (Mediator).
"Dialogue is about those negotiations that have been concluded in the form of a memorandum of understanding," Ghalibaf explained. "We followed up on the implementation of the first phase, that is, the first five clauses... Until these clauses are implemented, we will not enter the next stages at all."
In his most defiant remarks, Ghalibaf underscored that Iran's willingness to sit down in Switzerland is directly backed by its military readiness on the battlefield. He explicitly linked a recent, unprecedented cross-border missile strike from Iranian territory against Israel to the enforcement of the ceasefire terms.
"In fact, someone can negotiate well who is also ready for war," Ghalibaf said. "On the same issue, Lebanon, during the ceasefire, we said, 'Why are you not respecting the ceasefire?' It was the first time that during the ceasefire, we targeted the Zionist regime with missiles from our land to defend Lebanon, so if necessary, we will respond with war and fire."
Ghalibaf stated that Iran would continue to simultaneously hold the trigger and demand diplomatic compliance. "While we are doing this, we are also demanding that they implement the obligations of the memorandum of understanding. Why shouldn't we demand it?"
According to Ghalibaf, Lebanon was the top priority during the Switzerland talks (the Lake Lucerne Summit). "The US should have fulfilled its commitments regarding Lebanon. Regarding Lebanon and the implementation of the first paragraph, Iran and the US are the guarantors of this part of the memorandum of understanding. For this reason, we went to Switzerland on Sunday, and our first priority in the talks was the issue of Lebanon," he said.
— ANI
Reader Comments
As someone watching from the West, I find Ghalibaf's rhetoric alarming. Calling the US a "malicious enemy" while sitting at the same table seems contradictory. Diplomacy requires at least a veneer of trust. That said, the drop in casualties after talks is promising—results matter more than words.
Ghalibaf's approach feels very 'realpolitik'—something every Indian understands given our history with Pakistan. Diplomacy is not about friendship, it's about interests. And Iran clearly sees this as a way to enforce the MoU without backing down. But I'm skeptical: can the US be trusted as a guarantor when it clearly has its own agenda in West Asia? Also, the mention of Pakistan as mediator is interesting—we know how that plays out often.
From a Western perspective, this looks more like a propaganda victory than genuine progress. Iran wants to appear reasonable while reserving the right to strike. That's not negotiation—it's brinkmanship. The US should demand clearer commitments.
Finally, a leader who understands that talking doesn't mean surrendering! 🙌 Ghalibaf is right—negotiation without military strength is just begging. Look at how India deals with cross-border issues: we talk, but we also strike when needed. The fact that ceasefire violations dropped to almost zero proves this method works. Pakistan and Qatar as mediators? That's a good mix for West Asia. But I worry about the long-term: will this committee actually enforce anything?
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.