Iran's president said it is up to the United States to decide whether it wants to end the war involving Iran, according to a Reuters report. The remark places the initiative for any de-escalation in Washington's hands, at least in public framing.
Disclaimer: News content is based on public news sources and provided for information only. It does not constitute investment advice.
Iran's president said it is up to the United States to choose whether it wants to end the Iran war, according to a Reuters report dated September 24, 2026. The statement assigns the decision on de-escalation to Washington rather than to Tehran, at least as a matter of public positioning. The report as summarized did not include specific conditions, a timeline, or any reference to active negotiations. The comment is notable less for new detail than for its direction: it frames the other side as the party that must decide. That is a familiar diplomatic move, presenting one's own government as responding rather than initiating.
Iran's presidency is a significant office, but final authority over military, nuclear, and major security matters rests primarily with the Supreme Leader, not the president. A presidential comment on war and peace therefore functions as a signal rather than a binding policy decision. Iran and the United States have had no formal diplomatic relations since 1980, which means public statements often serve as the main visible channel for positioning. Messages between the two governments are frequently relayed through intermediaries such as Oman, Qatar, or Switzerland, which represents US interests in Tehran. A presidential statement can shape the tone of those indirect exchanges without committing the Iranian state to a specific course.
In 2015, the two countries were among the parties to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which lifted nuclear-related sanctions in exchange for limits on Iran's nuclear program. In 2018 the United States withdrew from that agreement and reimposed sanctions, and Iran subsequently expanded its nuclear activities beyond the deal's limits. The years since have seen repeated regional confrontations involving Iran-aligned groups and US forces, alongside periodic rounds of indirect talks. The phrase 'Iran war' in the president's remark reflects that accumulated conflict environment rather than a single, newly declared conflict. Any statement about ending it therefore touches on a standoff that has been building for roughly a decade.
The reported comment does not describe what the United States would need to do, or what Iran would offer, for hostilities to end. It also does not indicate whether Tehran would accept conditions Washington might set, or whether competing constituencies inside Iran would support such a move. Because the statement is public and general, observers remain dependent on subsequent signals from both capitals and from mediators. Its immediate practical effect may be limited to keeping the question of de-escalation in the news cycle and reinforcing Iran's preferred narrative. Concrete movement would require follow-up communication that has not been reported.
According to the Reuters report, he said it is up to the United States to choose whether it wants to end the Iran war. The summarized report provided no additional conditions or details. The core public message is that, in Tehran's framing, Washington holds the decision.
In Iran, the president runs the government but the Supreme Leader holds final authority over military, nuclear, and major security decisions. A presidential statement therefore signals a position but does not by itself commit the state. Any actual decision on war or peace would require the Supreme Leader's endorsement.
The two countries have had no formal diplomatic relations since 1980 and typically communicate through intermediaries such as Oman, Qatar, or Switzerland. Indirect talks have occurred periodically, including the negotiations that produced the 2015 nuclear agreement. The reported statement does not indicate whether any new channel is currently active.
What Iran's President Said
The Weight of a Presidential Statement in Iran
Background: How US-Iran Relations Reached This Point
What the Statement Does Not Resolve
This article is rewritten from public news sources and further processed by AI. It is provided for information only and does not constitute investment advice — refer to the original source for the authoritative version.
Publicly assigning responsibility to the other side is a standard diplomatic tactic that can shift blame and shape international opinion. It also allows Iran to present itself as open to de-escalation without committing to specific concessions. This framing is consistent with past Iranian messaging that casts the United States as the party that withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal.
The Reuters summary uses the phrase 'Iran war' but does not define which conflict is meant. It comes amid a broader confrontation involving Iran, US forces, and regional proxies that has escalated over several years. Without the full article, the precise scope of the term remains unspecified.
Because Washington and Tehran have no formal diplomatic ties, third countries such as Oman, Qatar, and Switzerland have historically carried messages between them. These intermediaries can host talks, relay proposals, and provide neutral venues. Their involvement is often a practical prerequisite for any structured de-escalation.
