image source, Getty Images
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian‘s statements raised the astonishment of a large number of observers when he apologized to neighboring countries for the recent attacks carried out by Iranian forces against these countries, during a speech he delivered on Saturday morning, as one of the members of the interim leadership council that runs the country.
States rarely issue apologies, especially during armed conflicts, but the way the apology was announced has generated a lot of interest. Because it is customary for leaders to only express “sorry” or even evade responsibility.
Not only did Pezeshkian apologize, but he directly acknowledged the targeting of neighboring countries, and confirmed that Iranian forces have now been asked to stop striking these countries, unless attacks are launched from their territories on Iran.
The Iranian president said in his speech: “I consider it necessary to apologize to the neighboring countries that were attacked. We do not intend to invade neighboring countries.”
His words raised the first question: Was this a real apology, and why now?
One possibility behind these statements is that the interim leadership is trying to contain the growing regional repercussions of this war.
Some countries in the region fell victim to the exchange of attacks after the strikes launched by the United States and Israel on Iran, on Saturday, February 28.
Pezeshkian pointed out that the attacks carried out by Iranian forces were based on “shoot at will” instructions, that is, (they were not under instructions from the Central Command), after the first wave of strikes resulted in the killing of senior Iranian leaders and the disruption of the Central Command structures.
Through the apology, he may be trying to indicate that Tehran does not want to escalate the current war into a broader regional confrontation.
Pezeshkian’s message also implicitly acknowledges a political reality: even if some neighboring countries allow US forces to operate from bases on their soil, Iran risks isolating itself further if it openly targets these countries.
But it is not yet clear whether the apology will turn into a political reality or not.
Reports indicate that strikes linked to Iran or carried out by associated forces have not yet stopped. On Saturday afternoon, both Qatar and the UAE announced that they had intercepted missiles targeting them.
If attacks like this continue, they raise a deeper question about control within Iran’s fractured leadership structure.
Since the first wave of attacks killed key figures, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, decision-making has moved to an interim leadership council.
In theory, the new leadership structure gives people like Pezeshkian more influence than they had before, in the absence of a single dominant supreme authority: Khamenei.
But in practice, there is no confirmed information about the ability of the new leaders to control powerful military and security institutions such as the Revolutionary Guard.
If Iran-related strikes on neighboring countries continue despite the president’s statement, this will indicate either a breakdown in communications or a refusal by factions in Iran to reduce the intensity of the military confrontation.
Hard-line elements within Iran’s security establishment have long defended their position that regional pressure is the strongest means of deterrence Iran has against US and Israeli military power.
Internal reactions also reflect this tension. Some hard-liners criticized Pezeshkian’s statements, describing them as weak.
The current political situation in Iran is unusual: many of the most powerful hardline figures at the top of the regime are gone, but many lower-ranking officials and leaders remain deeply skeptical of any current language of reconciliation.
To them, apologizing to foreign governments may seem like surrender at a time of national crisis the country is going through.
Outside Iran, the reaction was characterized by a completely different outlook. US President Donald Trump quickly claimed, in a post on the Truth Social platform, that Iran had “apologized and surrendered” to its neighbors, claiming that this step proved the success of American and Israeli military pressure.
Trump’s language also reveals how Washington interprets Tehran’s signals. Trump has repeatedly insisted that the only acceptable outcome is Iran’s “complete surrender.”
This request created a diplomatic precedent.
Historically, countries rarely accept unconditional surrender as they are only subjected to air military campaigns, no matter how intense the bombing.
Without ground forces on the ground, imposing such an outcome would be extremely difficult.
Thus, interpreting Pezeshkian’s apology as a form of surrender could serve as a political tactic used by Washington: a way to claim progress without formally abandoning the demand for surrender.
For Pezeshkian and the interim leadership council, the calculations may be different.
Reaching a ceasefire now could help stabilize the situation before a new permanent leader emerges.
Perhaps to anticipate the idea that the next person to take control of the Iranian political system might be a hardline cleric, and then the prospects for diplomacy would be narrower.
This possibility raises another strategic question: Is Pezeshkian positioning himself as a figure with whom one can negotiate, that is, the type of person with whom Western governments might prefer to deal?
In his speech, the Iranian president tried to strike a balance between challenge and openness, refusing to surrender while indicating restraint towards neighboring countries.
But it now appears that the struggle over Iran’s future leadership is already taking shape.
Many political and religious figures, as well as leaders within the IRGC and security forces, may see the current crisis as an opportunity to strengthen their positions.
Some are calling on the Assembly of Experts to move quickly to choose the next guide.
If Pezeshkian fails to stabilize or impose control over the armed forces, rivals may argue for a tougher policy.
For now, direct testing lies outside Iran’s borders.
So far, many neighboring countries have reacted cautiously to Pezeshkian’s statements or remained silent, waiting to see whether the apology will lead to real changes on the ground.
Israel, which views the conflict as a rare opportunity to weaken what it has long viewed as an Iranian threat, may not want to interpret the message as a real step toward de-escalation.
Perhaps this ambiguity is intentional.
Pezeshkian’s apology leaves room for three interpretations: it may be a genuine attempt to calm regional tensions, a tactical move to buy time until the interim Iranian leadership is chosen, or it may be an indication of the beginning of political repositioning within Tehran itself.
But in light of the conflict being shaped by internal power struggles and the increasing pace of external war, the situation may be related to all three together.
