Iran's top negotiator Ghalibaf: We gain concessions not with talks, but with missiles

We gain concessions not with talks, but with missilesWe have no trust in guarantees or wordsOnly actions are the measureNo action will be taken before the other side actsThe winner of any agreement is the one who is better prepared for war from the day afterIran’s chief negotiator and parliament speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, explicitly stated that Iran gains concessions not with talks, but with missiles, while emphasizing that Iran places little faith in diplomatic guarantees or verbal commitments.The remarks come amid ongoing diplomatic efforts between Iran and the United States, where negotiations have been complicated by deep mistrust, escalations in the Strait of Hormuz, and disagreements over sanctions, security arrangements, and Iran’s strategic capabilities. Ghalibaf has repeatedly argued that Washington has failed to rebuild Iranian trust despite multiple rounds of talks.According to Ghalibaf, negotiations are not viewed as a process built on confidence or goodwill, but as an arena where power determines outcomes. His statement that “only actions are the measure” reflects a longstanding principle within Iran’s revolutionary establishment: military leverage and demonstrated capability carry more weight than diplomatic assurances.The comment that “no action will be taken before the other side acts” also signals Tehran’s insistence on reciprocity. Iranian officials have increasingly argued that previous agreements failed because Iran made concessions in advance while waiting for promises from US to be fulfilled. Under this framework, any future deal would require tangible steps by the opposing side before Iran responds in kind.Perhaps the most significant part of Ghalibaf’s remarks was his assertion that “the winner of any agreement is the one who is better prepared for war from the day after.” The statement underscores a security-first mindset that continues to shape Iran’s strategic calculations. Rather than viewing diplomacy as an alternative to conflict, the doctrine suggests that negotiations are effective only when backed by credible military deterrence.
This article was written by Giuseppe Dellamotta at investinglive.com.

🔗 Source