Iran vows tough reply to threats, says negotiations are not for show
Iran will respond strongly to any military threat and does not take such warnings lightly, government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani said on Saturday, after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that Iran must halt uranium enrichment or face serious consequences.
“Iran will give a very strong response if they take any action. We are absolutely not joking about this,” Mohajerani said in remarks to ILNA news agency. “We will not back down from threats on this issue under any circumstances.”
Her comments came after Rubio said Iran must end enrichment and allow full American inspections of its nuclear facilities or risk potential military action. Iran, which maintains its program is peaceful, has rejected full disarmament.
Mohajerani stressed that Iran is fully prepared for all scenarios but prefers diplomacy. “We are ready for everything, but we are not interested in conflict,” she said. “That is why we support dialogue and negotiations.”
She emphasized that Iran did not enter the talks lightly. “We didn’t enter negotiations to waste our time. Of course, we hope for a positive outcome, but we are continuing to run the country regardless of what happens.”
Iranian government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani.
The explosion last week at Iran’s Rajaee port had the force of roughly 50 tons of TNT, according to explosives experts cited by The Washington Post, who analyzed crater size and the shockwave.
The blast “could depict confined storage of an oxidizer” and noted similarities to past ammonium perchlorate explosions, said Gareth Collett, a retired British Army brigadier and explosives engineer.
Iran’s ultra-hardline Kayhan newspaper on Saturday slammed US President Donald Trump as “an exceptionally destructive fool,” accusing him of pursuing reckless foreign policies and warning that Tehran will never agree to full nuclear disarmament.
The paper, which is run by a representative of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said Trump’s efforts to reshape global politics could end in failure. “Even his fiercest critics may have to acknowledge his ambition,” Kayhan wrote, “but that same ambition could leave behind a world more unstable and dangerous than the one he inherited.”
In a stinging rebuke, the editorial added: “The title he gave Biden — ‘the worst and most incompetent president’ — may ironically become his own. He is, in the end, an exceptionally destructive fool.”
On Iran’s nuclear stance, the paper suggested limited flexibility: Tehran might agree to reduce uranium enrichment to a non-military level and allow independent verification. However, Kayhan made clear that “Iran will never submit to total nuclear disarmament.”
The comments follow US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s warning on Thursday that Iran must end all enrichment and open its nuclear facilities to American inspectors or face serious consequences, including military action.
Republican Senator Ted Cruz said Friday that US President Donald Trump has made clear to Iran’s Supreme Leader there will be “no deal unless Iran dismantles its enrichment and centrifuges.”
The outspoken Iran hawk said in a post on X that Trump is reimposing maximum pressure and will not tolerate any agreement that leaves Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intact.
The Texas senator added that under Trump, Iran’s oil exports were heavily restricted, but those limits collapsed under President Joe Biden, allowing Tehran to expand its nuclear program while selling up to 2 million barrels per day.
The devastating port blast on Iran’s southern coast has prompted comparisons to the Chernobyl disaster, with some Iranian thinkers seeing echoes of the Soviet Union’s final days in their own country’s unraveling.
Like the explosion at the nuclear power plant in 1986, the deadly blast at Iran’s Bandar Abbas port—reportedly caused by missile fuel stored at a civilian facility—has become a symbol of decay, incompetence, and state secrecy.
Chernobyl ushered in political change and the collapse of Communism. Could this be the beginning of the end of the Islamic Republic?
Historical analogies are never perfect, but they are often revealing.
In the late 18th century, both Russia and Iran were backward agrarian societies ruled by monarchs, burdened by inequality, and haunted by their failures to modernize. Russia's army was a formidable force, but the empire still lagged behind Western Europeans in industry and capital accumulation.
By the mid 19th century, leftist and liberal movements had begun to emerge in Russia, aiming to abolish serfdom and challenge autocracy as part of a broader push for modernization. In Iran too, the educated few, often inspired by the west, were beginning to call for fundamental change.
In Russia, this quest culminated in the dual revolutions of 1917. In Iran, it led to the Constitutional Revolution of 1905 which brought Iranians partial representation but little material progress.
That began only with the rise of Reza Shah in 1925.
Reza Shah confronted the clergy and their medieval traditions' hold on Iranian society. He oversaw an extensive program of modernisation that continued under his son and transformed the country in many ways.
But without democratic development and under pressure from leftist and clerical opposition, Iran’s own “October Revolution” came in 1979.
As in Russia, Iran's post-revolutionary regime was anti-West. It was largely backed by pro-Soviet activists—most of whom were soon crushed by the religious camp while some quietly adapted and remained in the system.
Iranian Red Crescent rescuers work following an explosion at the Rajaei port in Bandar Abbas, Iran, April 27, 2025.
The Islamic Republic, like the Soviet Union, sidelined foreign capital, prioritized homegrown militarization, and sustained itself on repression and slogans. After almost half a century, the revolutionary fervor is gone, corruption is rampant, and the economy is wrecked with years of sanctions and mismanagement.
Could it be argued then that the Islamic Republic today stands at a similar crossroads to that of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s? I think not.
Yes, the theocracy is under enormous pressure from the United States and Israel. A clear majority reject the ruling ideology and want out, as evidenced by widespread protests and growing defiance of Islamic restrictions.
But the Soviet Union had reform-minded leadership.
By the 1980s, some Soviet leaders recognized the system’s failure."The only one truly believing in Communism at the time was chief ideologist Mikhail Suslov," the last leader of Armenia’s Communist Party, Karen Demirchian, told this author in 1999.
And at the very top stood Mikhail Gorbachev, who became General Secretary in 1985 and launched the reformist movement of Perestroika and Glasnost.
By contrast, Iran is ruled by an 85-year-old cleric, Ali Khamenei, who is no Gorbachev— and may even have a few lessons to teach Suslov in rigidity. Khamenei's security forces have shown no hesitation in shooting unarmed protesters.
Gorbachev could act because the Soviet Union was run by a monolithic party that controlled the state, the military, and the security services. No party apparatus rules in Iran. Power rests with one man who presides over a web of largely dysfunctional institutions, tied and surviving mainly by their will to repress.
The Soviet Union collapsed not by popular uprising, but with Gorbachev's top-down liberalization. No such campaign would be entertained let alone initiated by the leader of the Islamic Republic.
The explosion in Bandar Abbas may have shocked and angered Iranians, but it was no Chernobyl in scale—and it's unlikely to be a Chernobyl in impact. Khamenei has never been fond of reform. Until he’s gone, any 'Soviet moment' is more of a warning than a turning point.
The US Secretary of State "has threatened Iran. In response, we say: Listen carefully, Rubio—don’t push your luck. Before acting foolishly, make sure you're ready to fish your soldiers’ corpses out of the sea," said Iranian hardline lawmaker Mahmoud Nabavian in a post on his X account.
