In an interview published Monday, Trump said the United States was in talks with Qalibaf, a former Revolutionary Guard commander. Qalibaf denied the assertion in a statement, saying Washington was “promoting desires as news while threatening our nation at the same time.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry also dismissed the claim. Spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said no negotiations had taken place, though he confirmed that intermediaries had conveyed proposals to Tehran.

Baghaei said Iran would not overlook what he described as past breaches of diplomacy, referring to indirect talks in 2025 and early 2026 that were followed by military action involving the United States and Israel.

War pressure shapes diplomacy claimsThe exchange comes as Trump has increased pressure on Tehran to reach an agreement to end the ongoing conflict, now in its fifth week following joint U.S.-Israeli strikes launched in late February.

Trump warned that failure to reach a deal “shortly” could result in widespread destruction of Iran’s energy infrastructure and critical facilities, including desalination plants.

Qalibaf’s role under scrutinyQalibaf, long viewed as a pragmatic conservative within Iran’s political system, has previously been mentioned as a potential interlocutor for Western governments.

However, questions remain about his authority within Iran’s complex power structure following the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in a February airstrike.His successor, Mojtaba Khamenei, is believed to maintain ties with Qalibaf, though competing centers of power within Iran’s leadership continue to shape decision-making.

Analysts say references to Qalibaf as a negotiating channel may reflect both external pressure tactics and internal political maneuvering, as Tehran navigates wartime conditions and diplomatic isolation.

The ministry issued a heavy worded statement praising the life and legacy of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, framing his political and religious role as central to the country’s independence and resistance to foreign influence.

In the statement, the ministry said Khamenei “lived a pious life, loved Iran, secured Iran’s independence, opposed foreign domination, and worked tirelessly for our country’s resilience and fortitude,” language that echoes long-standing official narratives promoted by the Islamic Republic since the 1979 revolution.

A statement heavy with symbolism

The ministry’s message went further, using highly symbolic and emotive language to describe what it called the “last phase” of Khamenei’s life, portraying his death as “honorable and dignified” and describing it as martyrdom occurring “on the 10th day of Ramadan.”

It alleged he was killed “at the hands of the most corrupt and criminal individuals on earth,” without naming those responsible or providing evidence.

Such language reflects the Islamic Republic’s deep-rooted political culture, in which martyrdom holds powerful religious and national significance, particularly in the context of confrontation with perceived external enemies.

Analysts say official references to martyrdom are often used to reinforce internal unity and frame geopolitical conflict in moral and existential terms.

Independence, resistance and legitimacy

By emphasizing themes of independence and resistance to foreign domination, the Foreign Ministry’s statement reinforces a core pillar of Iran’s state ideology: the portrayal of its leadership as guardians of sovereignty against outside interference.

This narrative has been a constant feature of official discourse amid decades of sanctions, regional rivalries and strained relations with Western powers.

The ministry said Khamenei would remain “a living nightmare for his killers forever,” a confrontational tone Tehran frequently adopts when addressing its adversaries, particularly during periods of heightened regional tension.

Domestic and regional implications

While the statement does not outline any immediate policy steps, its rhetoric is likely to resonate with hardline constituencies inside Iran and among allied groups across the region. Observers note that such messaging can serve multiple purposes: consolidating domestic support, signaling defiance abroad and framing ongoing conflicts as part of a broader historical struggle.

No independent confirmation of the ministry’s claims was immediately available, and the statement offered no further details beyond its symbolic and ideological assertions.