Please Wait...

Al-Ahed Telegram

Iran Rejects Temporary Ceasefire, Calls for Permanent End to War Cycle

Iran Rejects Temporary Ceasefire, Calls for Permanent End to War Cycle
folder_openIran access_time 29 days ago
starAdd to favorites

By Staff, Agencies

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Khatibzadeh stated that the Islamic Republic opposes any temporary ceasefire and insists on a permanent end to ongoing conflicts.

Speaking on the sidelines of the Antalya Diplomacy Forum, Khatibzadeh said Iran “does not accept any temporary ceasefire,” stressing that “the cycle of conflict must end now and forever.” He added that any ceasefire must extend across all conflict zones “from Lebanon to the Red Sea,” describing this as a firm red line for Tehran.

Khatibzadeh noted that mediation efforts by Pakistan are aimed at achieving a comprehensive resolution. He also emphasized that the Strait of Hormuz has historically remained open, despite lying within Iran’s territorial waters.

He blamed US and “Israeli” aggression for destabilizing the region, warning that such actions have negatively impacted global trade and the wider economy.

Following the February 28 escalation involving strikes by the United States and “Israel” on Iran, Tehran launched retaliatory missile and drone attacks on “Israeli”-occupied territories and US-linked targets in the region.

Iran also signaled that access to the Strait of Hormuz could be restricted to countries not aligned with its adversaries.

Despite this, Tehran recently announced that the waterway would remain open to commercial traffic during the 15-day ceasefire period that began on April 8. Khatibzadeh reaffirmed Iran’s commitment to keeping the strait operational, but under potential new arrangements related to security, safe passage, and environmental considerations.

He concluded that a sustainable resolution to the conflict, alongside a shift away from what he described as Washington’s maximalist positions, would ensure the continued stability of the Strait of Hormuz as a vital global trade route.

Comments