Khamenei: Iran "Will Not Surrender"
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei delivered an address to the nation on Wednesday, June 18, emphasizing that the country will not surrender to the US.
The address was televised in which the leader said that Iran 'will stand firm against an imposed war, just as it will stand firm against an imposed peace'.
'This nation will not surrender to anyone in the face of imposition,' he added.
The Iranian leader also responded to the statements made by US President Trump, saying, "Iranians do not answer well to the language of threat".
'And the Americans should know that any US military intervention will undoubtedly be accompanied by irreparable consequences,' he added.
This was the Iranian supreme leader's first address to the nation since Israel's attack on Iran on Friday, June 13.
Ali Khamenei's address was followed by President Trump's statement at the White House on Wednesday about Iran.
When asked about the US moving closer to attacking Iranian nuclear facilities, President Trump said, "You don't know that I'm going to even do it. You don't know. I may do it, I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do."
These statements were followed by Israeli strikes in Najafabad, which killed six people, including two children, according to Iran's Tasnim news agency.
This article was previously published on bahrainmoments. To see the original article, click here
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
10 minutes ago
- Middle East Eye
US strikes Iran: Israelis hail attack and hope it will end the war
Israelis awoke on Sunday to the dramatic news that the United States had launched air strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities, marking Washington's entry into the war Israel began against Iran just over a week ago. But celebrations were short-lived. By 7:30am, air raid sirens wailed across the country as Iran fired a wave of missiles. As Israelis waited in bomb shelters, the missiles struck Tel Aviv and Haifa, wounding several and causing significant damage. Despite the attacks, many Israelis expressed support for US President Donald Trump's decision to heed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's call to join the fight. "The US has bombs we don't have. That's what should have happened," said Stav, a Tel Aviv resident. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Another local, Tal, told Middle East Eye he hoped the strikes would "end the war more quickly and reduce the missile fire", adding he wished they would "eliminate Iran's nuclear programme and ballistic missiles". Many in the Israeli media were also satisfied by the attack. Senior journalist Ben Caspit, who is considered one of Netanyahu's harshest critics, wrote on X: "History. We waited for it for 15 years. We will wait for the damage assessment and the Iranian response. Thank you, President Trump." 'Iran can't escalate their response too much' - Tal, Tel Aviv resident Yaron Avraham, the political correspondent for Channel 12, Israel's leading news channel, did not wait for the attack's assessment to heap praise on Netanyahu. "A tremendous success for Netanyahu, who is currently writing a legacy in the field that he first warned about, even when everyone ridiculed him and few believed," he wrote on his X account. According to Avraham, Netanyahu's success was expressed in the initiative to attack Iran first and the recruitment of Trump to join the attack, which gave "a decisive blow to the three significant nuclear facilities, first and foremost, Fordow". Tal also praised the collaboration between Trump and Netanyahu. "They put on a good show. If it will destroy Iran's nuclear programme, then you can say that they did a good job," he told MEE. Stav said that Trump and Netanyahu "did a great job. Bibi [Netanyahu] restored Israel's honour with the war in Iran after what happened in Gaza". 'Iran can't escalate' Support for the US attack cut across political lines in Israel, with both right- and left-leaning figures praising the move. Tomer Persico, an academic who is considered in Israel to be a left-leaning Zionist, wrote this morning on his X account that "the subjugation of Iran is a significant basis for the establishment of a Middle East of regional alliances and not of terrorist proxies". "From here, we must move towards a regional agreement that includes normalisation with Saudi Arabia and a move towards the final condition for a new Middle East: the establishment of a Palestinian state," Persico added. Iranians say their hopes of peace have been buried by US bombs Read More » Despite public support, life in Israel remains far from normal. The Home Front Command has restricted activity across the country, allowing only essential workers to report to their jobs. In Tel Aviv, streets remain noticeably emptier than usual for a Sunday, as many residents stay near shelters for a second consecutive week. Stav, one of many Israelis unable to work due to the war, said this is "what we have to go through. There's no other choice". "I hope it will end as soon as possible, and we can live with Iran in peace," Stav said of the possibility that the war would escalate now. Tal is less worried about a potential escalation in the war. "Iran can't escalate their response too much," he told MEE. "Iran will want to make some kind of agreement. I don't know how long it will take, but it's worth it,."
Middle East Eye
10 minutes ago
- Middle East Eye
US lawmakers divided on Iran strikes largely along party lines
US lawmakers have had a mixed reaction to the country's strikes on Iran, with responses largely split down party lines. President Donald Trump said the US had targeted three nuclear sites in Iran late on Saturday, as Washington directly joined Israel's days-long assault on the Islamic Republic. The threat of war between the US and Iran has been on the cards for decades and the attack was the fulfillment of a long-standing wish for some, while others dreaded the spectre of the US entering another Middle East war. Left-wing Senator Bernie Sanders was giving a speech at a rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, when he learned of the attack on Iran, which he denounced as "unconstitutional". As he read out the statement from Trump on the attack, the crowd started booing and chanting "no more war" to which Sanders responded "I agree". New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters "All of you know that the only entity that can take this country to war is the US Congress. The president does not have the right," he said. Other Democrats, particularly on the progressive wing, also condemned the attacks. Democratic California Congressman Ro Khanna condemned the attack taking place "without any authorisation of Congress" and said on X that Congress needed to urgently support his "War Powers Resolution to prevent America from being dragged into another endless Middle East war". Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for Trump to be impeached over the assault. "The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorisation is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers," she said on X. "He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment." US strikes on Iran: How the world reacted Read More » Other more centrist Democrats also criticised the attacks, albeit often while also condemning Iran. Hakeem Jeffries, leader of the House Democratic Caucus, said the authority to launch a war should rest with Congress, but also said Iran was an "enemy" of the US who could "never be permitted to become a nuclear-capable power". US Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, a longtime opponent of Iran, said a vote needed to be called in Congress on the war. A number of Democrats, primarily staunch Israel supporters, threw their weight behind the attacks. "As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by [Trump]," wrote Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman. "Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world." Republicans rejoice Republicans largely threw their support behind the attacks. "This was the right call. The regime deserves it. Well done, President @realDonaldTrump," wrote South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a longtime supporter of attacking Iran. "To my fellow citizens: We have the best Air Force in the world. It makes me so proud. Fly, Fight, Win." Rick Crawford, an Arkansas Republican and chair of the House Intelligence Committee, also supported the attack, saying he regretted "that Iran has brought the world to this point". There were, however, a handful of Republicans who criticised the attack. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a far-right congresswoman associated with Trump's Make America Great Again (MAGA) faction, has been staunchly opposed to US involvement in a war on Iran. In a post on X she wrote: "Let us all join together and pray for peace."
The National
10 minutes ago
- The National
By striking Iran, Trump has shaken up a Biden doctrine for the Middle East
Since returning to power in January, US President Donald Trump has thrown the world into confusion with contradictory moves – issuing ultimatums and deadlines only to walk them back. This was the case on in the early hours of Sunday morning, too, when he attacked three of Iran's nuclear facilities after having earlier announced that he would give two weeks' time for the ongoing Israel-Iran war to be resolved diplomatically. Mr Trump had usually been averse to wars and their consequences. He has often been influenced by the last person to interact with him, whoever that might be, particularly if he or she offered him a political safety net. Yet on Saturday, he shed the pejorative tag 'Taco' – or 'Trump Always Chickens Out' – which he earned for his on-again, off-again tariff war with the rest of the world. The US strikes have left the international community unable to predict what its President will do next on the Iran issue, and whether he even has an exit strategy. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, faces a different predicament. The US, no matter what Mr Trump chooses, is more or less capable of weathering the fallout. Iran, on other hand, will find itself teetering on the edge of devastation if Mr Khamenei widens the war to defend his establishment at the country's expense. So who now has the initiative? Peering into Mr Trump's mind to understand how he thinks is a near impossible task. He is convinced that the art of negotiation and inducements can still help convince Tehran to abandon its nuclear and ballistic missiles programmes, as well as its doctrine of expansionism, and make peace. Deep down, the US President appears to believe that if he were to sit face to face with Mr Khamenei, he could persuade him to strike a deal. Mr Trump's demand that Iran surrender unconditionally appeared to have stirred the establishment's instinct, making it react viscerally to what it views as humiliating rhetoric. And so in the run-up to the strikes, Tehran made it clear that if Washington enters the conflict directly, all options would be on the table – from closing the Strait of Hormuz to activating its armed proxies in the region and attacking American interests. It also boasted of hitting Israeli cities with its missiles and insisted that nothing can bring down the establishment in Tehran. Yet it had to take a step back, particularly after concluding that neither Russia nor China were prepared to stand with it, despite their security pacts. It sought help from the European troika of France, Germany and the UK – countries that were involved in the 2015 Iran nuclear deal – to end the war. But the talks involving Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi failed to make a breakthrough. French President Emmanuel Macron floated a proposal involving three pillars: curbing Iran's nuclear programme, its ballistic missiles programme and its funding of regional armed groups. Those pillars still stand, should Mr Khamenei accept the diplomatic exit from this war. Mr Macron's statement marked a shift in the framework of the US-Iran bilateral talks led by Mr Araghchi and Mr Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, brokered by Oman, which focused solely on the nuclear issue. Those five rounds misled Iran – or Iran misled itself – into believing it had succeeded in excluding missiles and proxies from the negotiations. But Israel's pre-emptive military actions aborted the chances of Mr Trump and his envoy being ensnared by Iran's negotiating tactics. The hardening of public positions on all sides suggests there is little room for Iranian concessions on any of these issues. Yet what might unfold behind the scenes could force Iran's leaders into making trade-offs in exchange for silent guarantees that they stay in power, effectively thwarting Israel's effort to end their rule. Mr Khamenei now stands in the shadow of his predecessor, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who once said he had to drink from a poisoned chalice when he agreed to a ceasefire that ended Iran's eight-year war with Iraq in 1988 for the sake of regime preservation. What does Mr Khamenei intend to do to prevent its collapse? Will he decide that inflicting damage on Israel's infrastructure and rousing Iranian pride are both key to its survival? Or is a deal on the horizon after the US stepped in as a direct actor in this war? In other words, will the internal divisions between hardliners and reformists in the Islamic Republic lead to the conclusion that reforming the establishment's doctrine is the only means to ensure its survival? The Israel-Iran war of attrition has already cost both sides, and each is boasting of having inflicted serious damage on the other. Israel has made it clear that this is Mr Trump's war as much as its own. The losses Israel has suffered have made it unwilling to continue serving as a proxy in the US-led war. This is a qualitative shift in the equation. Perhaps this is now a duel between Mr Trump and Mr Khamenei. Or perhaps this is a war between the extremist ideologies that govern both Iran and Israel, and which the US seeks to tame. Perhaps it's both. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejects any fundamental solution in the Middle East because his hard-right government's ideology precludes accepting a Palestinian state, just as the ideology of the Islamic Republic precludes a normal Middle East as long as it pursues Iranian hegemony enforced by armed proxies. We will know soon if Iran's rulers are genuinely ready to compromise and secure a deal to preserve their rule, or if the hardliners within effectively embrace existential self-harm. Either way, unlike in the past, today the tactic of buying time has diminishing returns for the Islamic Republic.
