According to president.ir, the text of Masoud Pezeshkian’s message to the American people is as follows:

“In the name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful.

To the people of the United States of America, and to those seeking truth and a better life amid widespread distortion and manufactured narratives:

Iran, by this name, identity and existence, is one of the world’s oldest continuous civilizations. Despite its historical and geographical advantages at various times, it has never chosen a path of war, aggression, colonialism or domination in its modern history. Even while experiencing occupation, invasion and pressure from global powers, and despite its military capabilities compared with many neighboring countries, Iran has not initiated war but has defended itself and repelled aggressors.

The Iranian people hold no hostility toward other nations, including the people of the United States, Europe and neighboring countries. Even in the face of foreign government interventions and pressures throughout history, Iranians have consistently distinguished between governments and peoples. This is a deeply rooted principle in their culture, not a temporary stance.

Portraying Iran as a threat is inconsistent with both historical realities and present-day facts. This image stems from the political and economic needs of power structures — the need to create enemies to justify pressure, maintain military superiority, sustain arms industries and manage strategic markets. In such a framework, if a threat does not exist, one is created.

As a result, a significant concentration of U.S. military forces, bases and capabilities has formed around Iran, a country that, since the founding of the United States, has not initiated any war. Recent U.S. actions originating from these bases demonstrate the threatening nature of such a presence. It is clear that no country would refrain from strengthening its defense capabilities under these conditions. Iran’s actions have been and remain defensive responses, not the initiation of war or aggression.

Relations between Iran and the United States were not originally based on confrontation, and ties between the two peoples once proceeded without hostility or tension. A turning point came with the 1953 coup, an intervention aimed at countering the nationalization of Iran’s resources. It halted the democratic process, restored dictatorship and fostered distrust among Iranians toward U.S. policies. This distrust has deepened through support for the pre-revolution government, backing Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, imposing prolonged and extensive sanctions, and, ultimately, direct military actions against Iran.

Despite these pressures, Iran has not weakened but strengthened in various areas: a rise in literacy rates from 30% to 90%, expansion of higher education, advances in modern technologies, broader health services and significant infrastructure development. These realities are observable and measurable, independent of media narratives.

At the same time, the destructive and inhumane impacts of sanctions, war and aggression on the lives of the Iranian people cannot be ignored. Continued military actions, including recent attacks, naturally influence public perceptions and emotions. People who bear the costs of war — through their lives, homes, cities and futures — will not remain indifferent.

A fundamental question arises: How does this war serve the real interests of the American people? What tangible threat from Iran justifies such actions? Does the killing of innocent children, the destruction of pharmaceutical centers, or rhetoric about bombing a nation ‘back to the Stone Age’ bring any benefit beyond further damaging America’s global image?

Iran has pursued negotiations, reached agreements and fulfilled its commitments. Withdrawal from agreements, escalation toward confrontation, and attacks during negotiations have been destructive decisions made by the U.S. government in pursuit of external interests.

The initiation of attacks on Iran’s vital infrastructure, including energy and industrial facilities, directly targets the Iranian people. Beyond constituting a war crime, such actions will undoubtedly have consequences beyond Iran’s borders. They will expand instability, increase human and economic costs, and create cycles of tension and resentment with long-lasting effects. This path is not a sign of strength but of confusion and inability to reach a sustainable solution.

Is it not the case that the United States entered this conflict as a proxy for Israel, encouraged by that government? Has Israel not sought to portray Iran as a threat to divert global attention from its own actions? Is it not the case that Israel now seeks to fight Iran using American resources and lives, imposing costs on Iran, the region and the United States while remaining in relative safety? Is ‘America First’ truly a priority today?

I invite you to look beyond targeted media narratives, which are themselves part of the conflict. Consider those who have traveled to Iran, or the many Iranians who, after completing higher education, teach and conduct research at top universities worldwide or work at leading companies. Do these realities align with the portrayal of Iran presented in the media?

The world today stands at a point where continued confrontation is more costly and less productive than ever. The choice between confrontation and engagement is real and decisive, shaping the future of generations. Over thousands of years, Iran has faced many aggressors. They remain only as disgraced names in history, while Iran continues to stand with pride.”