Voices from the Arab press: Khamenei’s message from hiding

The Gulf is no longer viewed merely as an oil-exporting region flush with financial wealth; it has emerged as a formidable political and economic force on the global stage, authoring a new chapter in its history.

Over the past five years, Gulf states have undergone a dramatic transformation in their foreign and domestic policies. Once defined by conservatism and a narrow focus on local and pan-Arab affairs, these nations are now assertively engaging with global issues and actively shaping international discourse.

The summit addressed key issues, including regional security, sustainable energy, and economic cooperation. It emphasized the growing importance of strategic economic ties between the Gulf and the United States, particularly in addressing shared challenges such as climate change, artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity. This was no isolated event; similar high-level gatherings with the European Union, China, and Asian nations illustrate a newly globalized Gulf orientation that seeks to intertwine its priorities with those of the broader international community.

Politically, the Gulf has emerged as a leading force in promoting peace and stability, not only in the region but also globally. Through pragmatic leadership, Gulf countries have become central players in diplomatic mediation, hosting and facilitating negotiations aimed at de-escalating conflicts and promoting reconciliation.

Their increasingly visible roles in key global issues – from the Russia-Ukraine war to the US-Afghanistan withdrawal, stabilization efforts in Syria, and advocacy for the Palestinian cause – signal a level of influence grounded in credibility and international trust. These efforts underscore the Gulf’s growing capacity to influence peace outcomes and reinforce its standing as a vital partner in global diplomacy.

The message itself was strange and deliberately opaque. At no point did Khamenei acknowledge that Iran is currently facing a severe national crisis. He vaguely referred to an “imposed war,” without naming the alleged imposers or explaining how it came to be, while implicitly distancing Iran from any role in provoking it.

In essence, if he claimed not to understand why the war had begun, he certainly could not offer any vision for how it might end. Instead, he seemed intent on prolonging the conflict by falsely framing the United States as demanding Iran’s “unconditional surrender” – a notion he proudly insisted the Iranian nation would never accept.

By casting America as the principal adversary, Khamenei sought to deflect from the blow he had just suffered at the hands of the very entity he habitually derides as a “dwarf” with delusions of grandeur. But the reality is that the United States has not declared war on Iran and has not formally demanded unconditional surrender.

Notably, Khamenei’s speech omitted any reference to Islam or the oft-repeated claim that Iran is part of a broader Islamic nation rather than a standalone state. “The Iranian nation will never surrender,” he declared, seemingly forgetting that if such a call for surrender were made, it would not be addressed to the Iranian people – because friend and foe alike understand that the Iranian nation neither chose the path that led to this calamity nor has the authority to alter its course.

So, if Khamenei is not speaking for the Iranian people, who does he represent? Perhaps the ruling apparatus of the Islamic Republic? That, too, is unclear. The Supreme National Security Council, constitutionally empowered to make decisions on war and peace, issued a statement before Khamenei’s message that made no mention of the United States and did not echo his combative tone.

Instead, it expressed a desire to end the bloodshed and made clear that retaliation would only follow continued attacks. Nor can it be said that Khamenei represents the official stance of the government, including President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who have consistently called for de-escalation and urged international actors to help bring hostilities to an end.

This dual messaging, one belligerent, the other conciliatory, is a familiar tactic used by the regime to confuse Western policymakers and curry favor with left-leaning or “progressive” audiences in Paris, London, and Washington.

However, public sentiment within Iran, even among segments of the regime, appears to be diverging from Khamenei’s defiant posture. The majority recognize that his “to the last drop of blood” rhetoric comes from the safety of a concealed location, detached from the daily suffering of the people.

Khamenei’s hardline stance is not reflective of the current mood in Tehran’s power centers. None of the 12 generals, whether active or retired, who still orbit the regime’s inner circle have endorsed his apocalyptic vision.

Among the surviving IRGC commanders, only Mohsen Rezaee Mirgha’ed has launched verbal attacks on Israel and the United States – and he is widely dismissed as a theatrical figure better known for bluster than strategy.

The familiar chorus of one-star generals who have long dominated state television has been notably absent. Among the clerical establishment, only Noori Hamedani has echoed Khamenei, claiming that “Khamenei’s supporters” are en route to Jerusalem via Karbala, though events on the ground suggest the movement is in the opposite direction.

In the end, Khamenei’s message masquerades as a warning to President Trump, asserting that “America’s involvement in this problem will be entirely against the interests of the United States. The United States will be harmed and suffer more than Iran will.”