Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Friday that it was time to bring the months-long war with the United States to an end, arguing that Tehran was entering negotiations from a position of strength despite the continuing military and economic confrontation between the two countries.
Pezeshkian’s comments came as diplomatic efforts between the decades-old adversaries remained stalled and the conflict continued to disrupt regional trade and energy routes. Iran has kept the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz partially closed, while the United States has maintained a naval counter-blockade aimed at putting additional pressure on Tehran.
The Iranian president said his government should seek an end to the conflict while it retained what he described as a position of “power and dignity.”
“It is better that we bring the war to an end now as we are in a position of power and dignity,” Pezeshkian said during a meeting with doctors.
He portrayed the conflict as a political and strategic victory for Iran, arguing that international opinion had turned against Washington because of the damage caused by the US military campaign.
“The whole world acknowledges our victory and emphasises that America has attacked our schools, hospitals and infrastructure in violation of all regulations and is hated around the world,” he said.
Pezeshkian’s remarks came amid growing signs that Washington is shifting the focus of its campaign against Tehran away from sustained military operations and toward economic warfare.
The United States has threatened to significantly expand sanctions against Iran, seeking to isolate the country’s economy and intensify pressure on its leadership after months of fighting failed to produce a decisive outcome.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry on Friday condemned the proposed measures, describing Washington’s sanctions strategy as “economic terrorism” and accusing the United States of committing crimes against humanity.
“The perpetrators and instigators of these sanctions are deserving of trial and punishment for committing such heinous crimes,” the ministry said in a statement carried by Iranian state media.
The sharp rhetoric highlighted the widening economic dimension of the conflict, with Washington seeking to exploit Iran’s financial vulnerabilities while Tehran continues to rely on its strategic control over the Strait of Hormuz and its broader regional influence.
The Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant share of the world’s oil and gas supplies normally passes, has become one of the most important pressure points in the confrontation.
Iran’s decision to keep the waterway partially shut has increased uncertainty in global energy markets and complicated international shipping. The United States, meanwhile, has continued its naval counter-blockade as part of efforts to constrain Iran’s ability to sustain its economy and military operations.
Despite the continuing confrontation, neither side has been able to force the other into accepting its preferred outcome.
The resulting stalemate has raised the prospect of a prolonged conflict in which military operations are increasingly accompanied by economic pressure, diplomatic maneuvering and competition over international support.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent signalled on Thursday that Washington intended to intensify the economic campaign against Tehran.
Bessent said the United States would seek to “collapse” the Iranian regime through the threatened sanctions campaign, suggesting that the Trump administration sees economic pressure as an increasingly important instrument for weakening Iran’s government.
His comments came nearly six months after the war began and as concerns have grown over the political and economic costs of the conflict.
The shift toward sanctions could reduce the likelihood of the United States returning to large-scale military operations against Iran, Bessent suggested.
The Treasury secretary said the planned measures would make it less necessary for Washington to rely on heavy military action against Tehran.
He is expected to provide further details of the new economic measures against Iran during a press conference on Monday.
The proposed escalation has drawn criticism not only from Tehran but also from Beijing, which has repeatedly called for the conflict to be resolved through diplomacy rather than sanctions and military pressure.
China criticised Washington’s approach on Friday, saying additional sanctions would not resolve the Middle East conflict.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian was asked about US President Donald Trump’s threats and the planned expansion of economic pressure against Iran.
“Sanctions and pressure will not help resolve the issue,” Lin told reporters.
“China calls on all relevant parties to take responsible measures and resolve the problem through political and diplomatic means,” he added.
Beijing’s position places it at odds with Washington’s effort to persuade other major governments to participate in isolating Iran economically.
The United States has urged governments around the world, including China, to support efforts aimed at cutting Tehran off from sources of revenue and limiting its ability to withstand the pressure.
China’s position is particularly significant because of its economic and diplomatic relationship with Iran. Beijing has maintained close ties with Tehran and has consistently opposed unilateral US sanctions and what it describes as excessive reliance on economic coercion.
The issue is also likely to feature in discussions between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Trump.
Xi is scheduled to visit the White House on September 24, and Iran is expected to be among the major foreign-policy issues discussed by the two leaders.
The conflict has already featured prominently in US-China diplomacy. Iran was among the issues discussed when Trump travelled to Beijing for a summit in May.
The prospect of renewed high-level US-China discussions comes as Washington attempts to build international support for its economic strategy against Tehran while Beijing continues to advocate negotiations.
Iranian officials have rejected the US sanctions campaign and sought to portray the measures as evidence of Washington’s broader economic and political problems.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi criticised the American strategy in a post on X, arguing that Washington was attempting to divert attention from its own economic difficulties.
“The so-called ‘Economic D-Day’ is a diversion from America’s own crisis: unprecedented debt & surging interest costs,” Araghchi wrote.
His comments reflected Tehran’s broader effort to challenge the narrative that sanctions would force Iran into submission.
Iranian officials have repeatedly argued that the country has developed mechanisms to withstand external economic pressure after years of US sanctions.
However, the latest escalation comes at a difficult moment for Tehran, with the conflict placing additional strain on Iran’s economy and infrastructure.
The government faces the challenge of maintaining domestic economic stability while sustaining its military and strategic posture. At the same time, continued restrictions around the Strait of Hormuz risk increasing international pressure on Iran if disruptions to energy supplies persist.
For Washington, the economic campaign carries its own risks.
An expanded sanctions regime could deepen the confrontation without necessarily producing a political settlement. If Tehran refuses to concede, the United States could face pressure to maintain sanctions for an extended period or consider renewed military measures.
Bessent’s remarks therefore represent an important shift in emphasis rather than an end to the broader confrontation.
The Trump administration appears to be seeking a strategy capable of weakening Tehran without committing the United States to another prolonged military campaign.
For Iran, Pezeshkian’s call to end the war suggests that Tehran may also be looking for a way out of the conflict, but on terms that allow its leadership to claim that it has not been forced into surrender.
His emphasis on Iran’s “power and dignity” is significant because any future negotiations are likely to involve not only military and economic questions but also the political optics of how the conflict ends.
Both sides therefore face competing pressures.
Washington wants sanctions and economic isolation to force Tehran to make concessions, while Iran wants to demonstrate that military resistance and control of strategically important territory have prevented the United States from achieving a decisive victory.
The diplomatic deadlock has left the conflict suspended between escalation and negotiation.
Pezeshkian’s statement could provide an opening for renewed diplomacy if Washington responds positively, but the widening sanctions campaign suggests that the Trump administration is not yet prepared to ease pressure.
For now, the Strait of Hormuz remains a central pressure point, US naval forces continue their counter-blockade, and economic sanctions are poised to become an even more important element of the confrontation.
The coming weeks could determine whether the two sides move toward negotiations or enter another phase of escalation.
With Washington preparing additional economic measures, Tehran insisting it is negotiating from a position of strength, and Beijing calling for political and diplomatic engagement, the conflict appears to have reached a critical juncture.
Pezeshkian’s call to end the war may therefore represent an attempt to turn the existing stalemate into a diplomatic opportunity. Whether the United States sees the same stalemate as a reason to negotiate—or as evidence that greater economic pressure is necessary—could determine the next stage of the months-long confrontation.
