During his important speech, the Leader emphasized that independence is the cornerstone of revolutionary rationality. Reaffirming Iran’s nuclear rights, he underscored a diplomacy founded on dignity and called for engagement based on the rights of nations, while firmly opposing hegemonic domination.
The Leader’s comments must also be understood within the intellectual framework of Imam Khomeini, who saw independence not merely as a political notion, but as a foundation for new national identities among peoples emerging from centuries of subjugation. This offers a clearer comparative view of how the current leadership continues to pursue the ideals of the Islamic Revolution’s founder.
The Leader defined independence as “liberation from the sphere of domination”—not international isolation. This approach represents a natural continuation of anti-colonial struggles and rejects global systems that, under the guise of international organizations, seek to reproduce inequality and force independent countries into submission. Based on this logic, he reiterated that Imam Khomeini’s rationality was embodied in the concepts of Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist) and national independence—a rationality that allows for engagement, but never for submission.
These remarks also come at a pivotal moment, as new developments unfold in nuclear negotiations and a written proposal has reportedly been conveyed from the US to Iran via Oman, prompting widespread speculation in domestic and international media. While Iran has yet to officially confirm or deny any details of this proposal, the Leader’s pointed remarks on June 4 clearly signal Iran’s red lines to the American side. By emphasizing two foundational principles—independence and the legal right to enrichment—the Leader again made it clear that the Islamic Republic is open to negotiations, but only from a position of strength, legality, and dignity.
According to American media reports, one central point of the proposed US plan concerns uranium enrichment on Iranian soil—an issue that aligns closely with Donald Trump’s public stance that Iran should not engage in any enrichment. While this may appear to be a political demand, in substance, it is an attempt to deprive Iran of a legal right under international law.
In this context, the Leader stated: “You possess nuclear weapons. What right do you have to tell the Iranian people whether they may enrich uranium or not?” This blunt question exposes the underlying logic of the US proposal and asserts that Iran’s nuclear rights are non-negotiable.
Enrichment Is Not Just Political—it’s Legal
Far beyond a political posture, the Leader’s remarks on June 4 were a clear and documented reaffirmation of international legal principles. Under Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), all member states have the right to access peaceful nuclear technology. Iran, as an active and committed signatory, has long operated under rigorous inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), providing unprecedented transparency—even beyond the requirements of the Additional Protocol.
Thus, any US attempt to halt enrichment is not only a violation of international law, but also constitutes a form of structural discrimination against a sovereign nation.
Additionally, Article 1, Paragraph 2 of the UN Charter affirms the right of nations to determine their own scientific, economic, and social destinies. Any restriction on Iran’s scientific and technological development would directly violate this core principle. Therefore, Iran enters these discussions not from a posture of defiance, but with a solid legal foundation.
Nuclear Industry as a Symbol of Technological Resistance
In the worldview of the Leader, nuclear technology is not merely a tool, but a strategic expression of resistance against global domination. He defines this resistance not as blind confrontation, but as a rational exercise in preserving national independence.
This is why, when he speaks of Iran’s nuclear program, he connects it to broader national needs—such as food security, the treatment of complex diseases, the development of clean energy, and scientific advancement.
This strategic perspective is linked to a concept known as the “Right to Development.” The Right to Development has been recognized by the United Nations as one of the fundamental human rights and refers to the ability of nations to utilize their own resources for scientific, economic, and social advancement. The pressure on Iran to abandon nuclear technology is, in effect, an attempt to neutralize this very path of development and represents a form of “technological deprivation.”
National Sovereignty and Deterrence: Iran’s Red Lines
In another part of his speech, the Leader of the Revolution firmly emphasized that the nuclear industry falls within the “non-negotiable domains” of Iran’s governance structure. This stance carries not only legal implications but also a strategic message. When he declares, “They can’t do anything,” this is not merely a slogan; it reflects an indigenous network of deterrence—rooted in domestic capability, popular support, and defensive strength.
Article 2, Paragraph 7 of the United Nations Charter also affirms the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of states. From this perspective, any attempt to impose political demands outside legal frameworks constitutes a clear violation of that principle. The US and its allies—among the largest holders of nuclear arsenals in the world—have no legitimacy to prohibit peaceful nuclear technology, especially when such technology is pursued with transparency and in cooperation with international bodies.
Dignity-Based Diplomacy: Engagement, Not Submission
At the same time, the Leader’s statements made it clear that Iran continues to keep the path of diplomacy open. However, this diplomacy is not pursued from a position of weakness, but is grounded in strength, logic, and legal principles. “Dignity-based diplomacy” was a key phrase that stood out in his remarks—a diplomacy built on the rights of nations, national dignity, independence, and strategic interests, and one that is not up for negotiation under pressure, threats, or humiliation.
Within this framework, Iran has not yet announced its response to the US proposal, but the Leader’s position has outlined clear and highly specific criteria for any form of engagement or agreement. These criteria are: respect for internationally recognized rights, the full preservation of the right to enrichment, and the rejection of any form of discriminatory restriction.
Decoding the Leader’s Position: The Continuation of Imam Khomeini’s Path
The Leader’s remarks during the anniversary of Imam Khomeini’s passing were more than a statement on Iran’s nuclear dossier—they constituted a strategic reaffirmation of the foundational principles of the Islamic Revolution. By emphasizing that “independence is the pillar of revolutionary rationality,” he clarified that the concept of independence in the Islamic Republic does not mean isolation, but rather a conscious departure from the sphere of domination. This perspective is directly tied to the thought of Imam Khomeini, who regarded independence as the cornerstone of the identity of free nations.
Today, in the face of powers seeking to reproduce domination through coercive diplomacy, the Leader reiterates the same discourse: engagement, yes; submission, never. From this standpoint, any proposal that deprives Iran of its legitimate rights is not only rejected but is considered unviable—even within the framework of a negotiation that merely appears cooperative on the surface.
NOURNEWS