Iran’s unyielding stance toward U.S.: From historical memory to resistance doctrine

Pars Today – The Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran said in response to the U.S. president’s curiosity about Iran’s refusal to surrender: “We do not capitulate because we are Iranian.”

Seyed Abbas Araghchi wrote on his X account in response to the curiosity of Donald Trump about Iran’s resistance: “Curious to know why we do not capitulate? Because we are IRANIAN.”

Steve Witkoff, the U.S. president’s special envoy and chief negotiator, said in an interview with Fox News that Donald Trump asked him the question, adding that he did not want to use the word “desperate,” because Trump knows he has many options, but is curious why the Iranians have not surrendered.

Witkoff stated: “Why, under this level of pressure and with such naval power deployed there, have they not come to us and said that they admit they do not want nuclear weapons?”

He added that the United States is transferring military forces to the region in preparation for what it is ready to do, although he acknowledged that such deployment is operationally difficult.

The concept of Iran’s “unwillingness to surrender to the United States” can be explained through three analytical levels—national, regional, and international. In this framework, Iran’s position is not merely a short-term reaction to pressure or threats, but rather is rooted in historical, cultural, geopolitical, and value-based logic.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a country that has repeatedly faced foreign invasions throughout its history but has never collapsed under external domination. From ancient conflicts with imperial powers to the colonial and post-colonial eras, the Iranian national mindset has been shaped by the idea of “standing against hegemony.”

This historical experience has transformed the notion of resistance into a component of Iran’s political and social culture. For many Iranians, resistance symbolizes dignity and honor. Within this national culture and internal cohesion, any form of surrender under external pressure—especially toward a power associated in collective memory with coups, sanctions, and threats—is perceived as a violation of Iran’s historical identity.

It should also be noted that in the West Asia region, where interstate relations are often unstable and shaped by ethnic, religious, and geopolitical competition, the Islamic Republic of Iran has sought to act as a structure-forming actor rather than a follower of great-power alignment.

Iran’s geopolitical position—from its dominance over the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz to its proximity to Central Asia and the Caucasus—places the country at the center of energy routes, trade corridors, and regional security tensions.

Iran’s emphasis on unity-oriented diplomacy, internal independence, and opposition to foreign military presence is often presented as an influential model of regional cooperation and political self-reliance for neighboring countries.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has also positioned itself as a supporter of oppressed nations in the region, including Palestinians, Yemenis, and Lebanese groups, and claims to play a role in countering what it describes as expansionist pressures in West Asia.

On the international level, Iran presents itself as a country that resists what it considers an unjust global order. Since the 1979 revolution, Tehran has based its foreign policy on the principle of “neither East nor West,” emphasizing political independence from major global powers.

In recent decades, Iran has invested heavily in strengthening its defensive, scientific, and technological capabilities to establish what it describes as effective deterrence. The development of indigenous missile systems, military drones, nuclear technology, and cyber capabilities are among the indicators of this strategy.

Iran’s unwillingness to surrender is the product of a strategic combination of historical identity, cultural beliefs, geopolitical position, defensive capability, and a doctrine of political independence.

From Iran’s perspective, external pressure has in many cases strengthened rather than weakened this resolve. Accepting externally imposed demands is viewed as a loss of sovereignty, dignity, and strategic balance—an outcome that no government in Tehran, regardless of political orientation, is willing to accept.