In a rare and direct address to the American public, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has called on ordinary Americans to look past what he described as “war propaganda” and question whether their government truly prioritizes their interests or merely acts as “a proxy for Israel.” In a detailed letter released Wednesday, Pezeshkian framed Iran as a historically defensive nation, challenged long-standing perceptions of threat, and questioned the human and strategic costs of the United States’ ongoing military actions in the Middle East.
Opening his message, Pezeshkian painted a portrait of Iran as a nation that, despite its centuries-long history and regional influence, has never pursued aggression or territorial conquest. “Iran has never, in its modern history, chosen the path of aggression, expansion, colonialism, or domination,” he wrote. “It has only ever resolutely and bravely repelled those who have attacked it.” The statement emphasized a distinction central to Pezeshkian’s appeal: the difference between a government’s policies and the attitudes of ordinary citizens. “The Iranian people harbor no enmity toward other nations, including the people of America, Europe, or neighboring countries,” he added, calling this a “deeply rooted principle in Iranian culture and collective consciousness—not a temporary political stance.”
Pezeshkian argued that the widespread perception of Iran as a global threat is largely artificial. He characterized it as “the product of political and economic whims of the powerful—the need to manufacture an enemy in order to justify pressure, maintain military dominance, sustain the arms industry, and control strategic markets.” In this framework, the notion of a danger posed by Iran, he suggested, is not the reality but a constructed narrative.
The president sharply criticized the US military presence surrounding Iran, portraying it as the primary regional threat. He defended Iran’s own military posture as entirely defensive and grounded in self-preservation. “Recent American aggressions launched from these very bases have demonstrated how threatening such a military presence truly is,” Pezeshkian wrote. “Naturally, no country confronted with such conditions would forgo strengthening its defensive capabilities. What Iran has done—and continues to do—is a measured response grounded in legitimate self-defense, and by no means an initiation of war or aggression.”
Pezeshkian traced the roots of US-Iran hostility back to the 1953 coup that overthrew Iran’s democratic government. He described the coup as “an illegal American intervention” that reinstated dictatorship and “sowed deep distrust among Iranians toward US policies.” Subsequent American support for the Shah, backing of Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, enduring sanctions, and recent military attacks have only reinforced this distrust. Despite this history of pressure, Pezeshkian highlighted the nation’s resilience and progress, citing literacy rates that have risen to over 90% since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and notable advances in technology, healthcare, and infrastructure. “These are measurable, observable realities that stand independent of fabricated narratives,” he wrote.
The letter conveyed a deep humanitarian concern for ordinary Iranians. Pezeshkian described the impact of the ongoing US-Israeli military operations as “destructive and inhumane,” highlighting civilian casualties, including over 200 children, and the targeting of essential infrastructure such as healthcare facilities. “When war inflicts irreparable harm on lives, homes, cities, and futures, people will not remain indifferent toward those responsible,” he warned, linking the human toll to broader questions of policy and accountability.
Pezeshkian directly challenged the American public to reconsider the purpose and benefits of the military campaign. “Exactly which of the American people’s interests are truly being served by this war?” he asked. “Does the massacre of innocent children, the destruction of cancer-treatment pharmaceutical facilities, or boasting about bombing a country ‘back to the stone ages’ serve any purpose other than further damaging the United States’ global standing?” The letter underscored Iran’s prior willingness to engage diplomatically, referencing the 2015 nuclear deal that was nullified when former President Donald Trump withdrew in 2018. Pezeshkian described subsequent US actions as “destructive choices made by the US government—choices that served the delusions of a foreign aggressor.”
A striking element of the letter is Pezeshkian’s critique of Israel’s influence on US policy. He questioned whether America’s current aggression is being carried out “as a proxy for Israel, influenced and manipulated by that regime,” suggesting that Israel aims to “fight Iran to the last American soldier and the last American taxpayer dollar.” Pezeshkian further accused Israel of manufacturing an Iranian threat to deflect attention from its own actions against Palestinians, framing the conflict as strategically and morally misaligned with American national interest.
Inviting Americans to engage directly with Iranian culture and people, Pezeshkian encouraged them to observe the contributions of Iranian immigrants in science, technology, and academia, as a counter-narrative to the “machinery of misinformation” propagated through official channels. “The world stands at a crossroads,” he wrote. “Continuing along the path of confrontation is more costly and futile than ever before. The choice between confrontation and engagement is both real and consequential; its outcome will shape the future for generations to come.”
Concluding on a note of historical continuity, Pezeshkian emphasized Iran’s resilience through centuries of external threats. “Throughout its millennia of proud history, Iran has outlasted many aggressors. All that remains of them are tarnished names in history, while Iran endures—resilient, dignified, and proud,” he wrote. The letter, combining appeals to humanitarian values, historical memory, and strategic critique, represents a rare instance of direct communication aimed at the citizens of a country widely regarded as an adversary.
Observers note that Pezeshkian’s approach signals an attempt to bypass official channels and confront public opinion directly. By framing the issue as one of moral and strategic clarity, rather than mere propaganda, the Iranian president has positioned his message as a challenge to Americans to scrutinize both the rationale and consequences of their government’s military actions. While it remains unclear how much impact such letters have on public perception, the communication underscores the growing complexity of a conflict whose human, political, and economic stakes are increasingly intertwined.
As tensions continue to escalate in the region, Pezeshkian’s appeal serves as a reminder that diplomatic avenues, historical context, and civilian voices remain central to understanding conflicts that are often reduced to headlines and military statistics. Whether ordinary Americans respond to this direct appeal remains to be seen, but the letter is a rare effort to speak across a deep and widening divide, urging a reconsideration of what true national interest—and human conscience—demands in times of war.
