Qalibaf: Battlefield Victory Fuels Iran’s Diplomacy of Strength

By Staff, Agencies

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf said Iran is pursuing a “diplomacy of strength” backed by battlefield gains against the United States and the "Israeli" occupation entity, stressing that negotiations are a form of Resistance rather than retreat.

Earlier on Tuesday, Qalibaf said the key difference between the latest round of talks and previous diplomatic efforts was that negotiations were conducted from a position of strength.

"When I speak of negotiation and diplomacy, I mean a diplomacy of strength," he said.

Referring back to past experience, he added that during the JCPOA period he supported negotiations as a “method of struggle,” rather than opposing them outright.

Furthermore, he stressed that today’s talks are backed by what he described as a “banner of battlefield victory” acknowledged by both allies and adversaries.

Separately, his remarks came as Iran and the US are scheduled to sign a memorandum of understanding in Switzerland on Friday following a ceasefire announced by Trump on April 7 amid the latest US–“Israeli” escalation against Iran.

In this context, the announcement came amid decisive and successful Iranian retaliation and after the Islamic Republic closed the strategic Strait of Hormuz to enemies and their allies in reprisal.

Accordingly, Qalibaf said Iran’s armed forces defeated fully equipped adversaries, stressing that negotiations as struggle leave no room for surrender or empty slogans.

On the ground, Iran said its retaliation targeted US outposts and interests across regional countries while striking “Israeli” positions in the occupied territories, with Qalibaf outlining four arenas of confrontation: military struggle, street resistance, diplomacy, and public service.

At the same time, he said Iran thwarted all nine publicly declared US and “Israeli” objectives, including attempts to undermine the Islamic establishment and military capacity.

In addition, he credited popular participation on the streets as a key pillar of Iran’s resilience alongside military and diplomatic efforts.

Meanwhile, Qalibaf said Iran continued responding to hostile actions while diplomatic contacts were underway, including during the ceasefire period in the Gulf.

As a result, he argued that combining military strength with diplomacy enabled Iran to secure outcomes unattainable through force alone.

Turning to Lebanon, he said it was a key issue in negotiations, with Iran pushing for a broader cessation of aggression as part of the Axis of Resistance.

In this regard, he said Tehran used both diplomatic leverage and military readiness in response to “Israeli” strikes, contributing to the Beirut Dahiyeh ceasefire.

Moreover, Qalibaf said military gains must be translated into political and legal outcomes, arguing that victories are meaningless unless formalized in agreements.

Finally, he said Iran’s main guarantee is national strength and unity rather than international resolutions, adding that commitments are conditional on reciprocity under an “action for action” principle.