A leading member of Iran’s religious leadership has delivered a sharp rebuke to any suggestion of negotiating with the United States, underscoring the persistent rigidity and anti-American orientation of the Islamic Republic’s political elite. Ahmad Alamolhoda, a senior cleric and high-ranking member of the Assembly of Experts—the constitutional body charged with appointing and supervising Iran’s Supreme Leader—used a public sermon to warn that both direct and indirect talks with the US represent a fundamental affront to Iran’s national identity.
This latest declaration comes amid increasing economic pressures and calls by some Iranian officials for diplomatic solutions to alleviate international isolation and sanctions. Regardless, figures like Alamolhoda control key religious and ideological levers within the state, reinforcing a hardline policy line that shapes not only internal governance but also Iran’s foreign posture.
Historical Background and Enduring Hostility
Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, anti-American sentiment has been institutionalized in Iran’s political DNA, becoming both an ideological foundation and a rallying point among the clerical elite. The Assembly of Experts, and other conservative bodies, have long opposed engagement with the US, seeing compromise or negotiation as capitulation to perceived Western threats against the Islamic Republic’s revolutionary mission.
In the decades following the revolution, Iran’s leadership has advanced a foreign policy characterized by antagonism towards the US and Israel, bolstered by the creation and support of regional militant proxies. This approach manifests in state-sponsored propaganda and in the substantial material and financial backing provided to terror groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, Yemen’s Houthis, and Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria. These organizations collectively comprise the so-called “axis of resistance”—a network committed to challenging Western and Israeli interests across the Middle East.
Iran’s Domestic Crisis and Leadership Calculus
Despite mounting domestic dissent and economic strain exacerbated by years of sanctions, Iranian leaders remain staunch in their refusal to fundamentally alter course. The regime’s persistent invocation of national pride and revolutionary zeal is designed in part to suppress internal criticism and distract from chronic hardships. Alamolhoda’s sermon, condemning negotiations as humiliating to the nation’s dignity, aligns with this strategy—projecting strength and ideological consistency in the face of public discontent and policy failures.
Waves of protests, notably those triggered by human rights abuses and social restrictions—including the international outcry following the death of Mahsa Amini—have illustrated growing fissures between regime hardliners and Iran’s urbane, reform-minded population. Nevertheless, Iran’s clerical establishment continues to prioritize survival of the theocratic system above popular will, seeing foreign pressure and engagement as existential threats best met with resistance, not compromise.
Geopolitical Implications: Regional Instability
Alamolhoda’s pronouncement comes as the United States and its allies attempt to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions and curb its destabilizing activities across the region. Diplomatic overtures—such as efforts to renew or renegotiate the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—have found little traction among Iran’s top power brokers. Simultaneously, Iranian-backed threats against Israel, routine missile attacks in the Gulf, and continued support for armed proxies have fueled persistent instability and periodic escalation.
Crucially, Israel views these Iranian positions as direct threats to its national security. Successive Israeli governments, most recently under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have warned Western powers that Iran’s aggressive doctrine—bolstered by the clerical leadership’s public statements—precludes meaningful moderation through diplomacy alone. The aftermath of the October 7, 2023 massacre by Hamas terrorists, the deadliest antisemitic atrocity since the Holocaust, remains a defining episode in the region’s contemporary conflict, one deeply linked to Iran’s provision of support, weapons, and training to its proxy forces.
US and International Response
Western policymakers face a dilemma: engagement risks legitimizing and emboldening Iran’s repressive leaders, while continued isolation perpetuates humanitarian suffering among ordinary Iranians and risks unintended escalation. The US has sought, without clear success, to leverage sanctions as a tool to draw Iran back to compliance with nuclear agreements and moderate its external conduct. However, regular statements from Iranian authorities, typified by Alamolhoda’s recent speech, make clear that any negotiations that compromise the perceived ideological integrity of the regime are unlikely to succeed.
Strengthening alliances between Israel and Arab states, including those fostered by the Abraham Accords, reflect a growing acknowledgment across the region that curbing Iranian subversion and terror requires coordinated deterrence, not reliance on Tehran’s overtures.
Conclusion
The steadfast opposition among Iran’s highest-ranking religious authorities to US engagement epitomizes the regime’s enduring embrace of revolutionary defiance as state policy. As figures like Ahmad Alamolhoda continue to set the tone for national discourse, prospects for alleviating tensions through dialogue remain remote. For Iran, ideological rigidity serves as both a tool of internal consolidation and a constant driver of external confrontation. In this context, Israel and its regional partners continue to prioritize robust security measures against the persistent threat posed by Iranian-backed terror networks, firmly aware that appeasement or negotiation, under current conditions, is unlikely to deliver peace or stability.
