Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman, Baghaei, told reporters in Tehran on 26 January that the country’s armed forces would “do everything” to respond to any infringement and would make any aggressor “regret” its actions. Speaking at a regularly scheduled press conference, Baghaei insisted Tehran did not welcome war and remained open to diplomacy and negotiation even as he emphasised a readiness to use force in self-defence.
Baghaei accused the United States — in concert with Israel — of having “tipped over and set the negotiating table on fire,” a charge that places responsibility for stalled talks squarely with Washington and Tel Aviv. He said Iran had acted “sincerely and seriously” on the diplomatic front and had taken “all practicable measures,” engaging both regional and extra‑regional parties to resolve tensions.
Despite those diplomatic overtures, Baghaei warned that if war were imposed on Iran the country had no choice but to resist, saying that the defence of the state’s “roots and survival” required full mobilisation. The remarks combined a declaratory commitment to negotiations with a stark deterrent message designed to signal resolve to external adversaries and domestic audiences alike.
The statement comes against a background of prolonged U.S.–Iran hostility, deep Israeli security concerns about Tehran’s regional activities and a long history of mutual provocations involving covert actions, proxy forces and sanctions. Tehran’s rhetoric must be read alongside Iran’s conventional and asymmetric capabilities — from ballistic missiles to regional proxy networks — which shape its strategic calculus and the way outside powers assess any threat of escalation.
For international audiences, the importance of such statements is twofold. First, they reflect Iran’s attempt to manage a delicate balance between signalling that it prefers diplomacy and demonstrating credible military deterrence. Second, they elevate the risk of miscalculation: public threats increase pressure on both adversaries and partners to respond, complicating quiet diplomacy while raising the stakes for regional stability, energy markets and maritime security.
In practical terms, the international community should watch for corroborating moves — changes in military posture, deployments around key facilities, or intensified contacts with regional allies — as well as diplomatic ripples from Washington, Jerusalem and Gulf capitals. Tehran’s messaging is calibrated; it aims to deter while keeping open the possibility of negotiation. Whether it remains calibrated will depend on how other actors react to this latest volley of public warnings.