SouthernWorldwide.com – Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s hardline parliament speaker and a key negotiator, has issued a stern warning: Tehran will not adhere to its commitments under a recently signed memorandum with the U.S. if Washington fails to uphold its end of the agreement. This statement comes from the media arm of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
“If the United States does not honor its commitments, there is no way Iran will honor its own commitments,” Ghalibaf stated, as reported by the outlet.
This warning was amplified on Thursday by Esmail Qaani, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force. Qaani, in remarks translated by MEMRI TV, threatened the U.S., asserting, “Americans should know their place and avoid confronting the Muslims.”
Qaani further suggested that “Trump is trembling” and cautioned that the U.S. “should fear not only Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb, but many other locations as well.”
These strong pronouncements followed the digital signing of a memorandum between President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. The agreement aims to end the ongoing conflict and restore the flow of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
The memorandum offers Iran significant economic relief. It defers the resolution of some of the most complex nuclear issues to a final agreement, which is slated for negotiation over the next 60 days. According to a senior U.S. official who read from the 14-point plan, Washington has agreed to commence lifting its naval blockade. Additionally, the U.S. will collaborate with regional partners on a $300 billion reconstruction and development plan for Iran. As part of a final deal, all U.S., U.N., and other sanctions will be terminated on a mutually agreed schedule.
The memorandum also stipulates that the United States will grant all necessary licenses, waivers, and permissions for related financial transactions.
In exchange, Iran has reiterated its commitment that it “shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons.” Both sides have also agreed to resolve the fate of Iran’s stockpiled enriched material through a future mechanism. The minimum approach envisioned is on-site down-blending under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
However, the agreement postpones many of the most challenging aspects, including the winding down of Iran’s nuclear program, until the 60-day period dedicated to negotiating a final deal.
The individual at the forefront of this agreement on the Iranian side is not a diplomat known for moderation. Instead, Ghalibaf is a former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and a long-standing insider of the regime.
Ghalibaf has a history of threatening American forces and vowing that Trump would “pay the price.” His career has been built on unwavering loyalty to Iran’s security establishment.
These recent warnings highlight a central risk of the agreement, according to experts. They suggest that Washington may be entering into a deal with officials who can enforce Iran’s commitments, but who have shown little inclination to alter the regime’s long-standing stance towards the U.S., Israel, or the broader region.
Ghalibaf, aged 64, is a product of Iran’s security apparatus. He ascended through the ranks of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps during the Iran-Iraq War, eventually leading its air force.
He later took on the role of Iran’s national police chief. In this capacity, he oversaw internal security forces responsible for suppressing dissent, including the 1999 student uprising, working alongside Qassem Soleimani.
Transitioning into politics, Ghalibaf made several unsuccessful attempts to run for president. He instead solidified his position by demonstrating loyalty to the system, serving as Tehran’s mayor for over a decade before assuming the speakership of parliament in 2020.
“His name has also been linked to multiple corruption allegations, including misuse of oil revenues and sanctions evasion networks involving his family. His sons have reportedly been involved and are under sanctions,” Sabti said, adding, “There have also been public scandals involving family members traveling abroad and making luxury purchases, including widely circulated images of them arriving with numerous high-end Gucci suitcases.”
Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, commented that the image of Ghalibaf participating in a signing ceremony with a senior U.S. official would serve as a propaganda victory for the Iranian regime.
However, Taleblu cautioned against mistaking Ghalibaf’s opportunism for moderation.
“The mirage is the myth of Iranian military moderation and the myth that, with time, this regime will integrate and put aside all the things that have kept it on the sidelines for so long,” he stated. “Transforming Iran via a deal — that is a huge lift.”
Ghalibaf’s wartime rhetoric reflects the hardline stance prevalent within Iran’s leadership. In remarks broadcast on Iranian television on January 12 and translated by MEMRI, he warned of catastrophic consequences for U.S. forces if they were to confront Iran.
“Come, so you can see what catastrophe befalls American bases, ships and forces,” he declared, adding that American troops would be “burned by the fire of Iran’s defenders.”
More recently, he asserted that “the blood of American soldiers is the personal responsibility of Trump,” and vowed that Iran would “settle accounts with the Americans and Israelis,” emphasizing that “Trump and Netanyahu crossed our red lines and will pay the price.”
John Hannah, a senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America and a former national security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, noted that Ghalibaf’s anticipated role accurately reflects the distribution of power within Iran.
However, Hannah highlighted the critical question of whether Iran’s leadership perceives compliance as beneficial, or if the agreement is merely a temporary pause.
“The big question is whether they see it in their interest to do so, or are they only buying time, rebuilding their power and preparing for the next round of conflict,” he posited.
Ben Taleblu expressed an even more direct concern, warning that even a seemingly advantageous agreement would not alter the fundamental nature of the regime.
“Even if you’ve got the perfect deal, with this kind of regime, with this kind of mentality, they will escalate,” he stated. “I thought we would have learned by now what the regime did after the JCPOA. It built a vast missile arsenal. It literally built an empire of terror proxies that took Israel years of blood, effort and money to dismantle, backed by American support.”
“If we engage in pay-to-play with these guys,” he concluded, “I’m sorry to sound the alarm bell like this — but something tells me this is bad either way.”
