Iran Says It Is Prepared for 'Doomsday War' as Trump Rejects Tehran's Plan to End Conflict

Iran's foreign minister has declared that the country is ready to return to war with the United States, warning that it is prepared for a conflict severe enough to be described as a "doomsday war," while simultaneously insisting that Tehran remains open to a diplomatic resolution.

Abbas Araghchi made the remarks in comments carried by Al Jazeera's NewsFeed program, striking a dual note of defiance and openness that has come to define Iran's public posture during the current standoff. He said Iran would be prepared for hostilities to resume, "even if it comes to a doomsday war," but stressed that the door to negotiations had not been closed.

The foreign minister's statement came after US President Donald Trump rejected a seven-day plan put forward by Iran aimed at bringing the fighting to an end and reopening the Strait of Hormuz. That waterway, which sits between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, is the world's most important oil transit chokepoint, and its closure or disruption carries immediate consequences for global energy markets.

The rejection of Tehran's proposal marks a significant setback for efforts to de-escalate a conflict that has already drawn in multiple regional actors and disrupted shipping through one of the most strategically vital corridors on the planet.

Araghchi's choice of language was notably stark. By invoking a "doomsday war," the foreign minister appeared to be signaling that Iran is willing to absorb and inflict catastrophic levels of damage rather than capitulate to US demands. The phrasing is likely intended as a deterrence message aimed as much at domestic audiences and regional allies as at Washington.

At the same time, the explicit reference to diplomacy suggests Tehran does not want to be seen as the party that walked away from a negotiated settlement. Iranian officials have consistently framed their proposals as reasonable attempts to end hostilities, placing the burden of rejection on the American side.

The seven-day plan reportedly sought both a halt to the fighting and the restoration of normal traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. Reopening the strait would ease pressure on global oil supplies and shipping lanes, which have been severely affected since the conflict began.

Trump's decision to turn down the plan leaves the two sides without a clear diplomatic off-ramp. It also raises questions about what terms, if any, Washington would find acceptable, and whether the rejection was intended to extract further concessions from Tehran before returning to the table.

The Strait of Hormuz typically handles a substantial share of the world's seaborne crude oil and liquefied natural gas. Any sustained interruption to traffic there tends to ripple through energy prices, insurance rates for tankers, and the broader global economy, making it a central point of leverage in the standoff.

Regional analysts have long argued that control over the strait gives Iran a powerful deterrent tool short of direct military confrontation. Even the threat of disruption compels outside powers to factor Tehran's preferences into their calculations.

The comments from Iran's top diplomat come amid heightened tensions across the Middle East, where multiple overlapping conflicts have created an atmosphere of sustained uncertainty. The risk of miscalculation is elevated when rhetoric on both sides escalates and diplomatic channels narrow.

Araghchi's remarks were delivered as a video statement and circulated widely through Al Jazeera's news programming, ensuring they reached both regional and international audiences quickly. Such messaging is often calibrated to serve several constituencies at once.

For Iran's leadership, projecting resolve serves to reassure hardline domestic factions that the government will not be seen as yielding under pressure. Simultaneously, offering diplomacy provides cover for countries urging restraint and keeps potential mediators engaged.

For the United States, rejecting Iran's plan may be intended to maintain leverage and avoid appearing to reward Tehran's tactics. However, it also risks prolonging a confrontation with significant economic and security costs.

The absence of a functioning agreement leaves the situation highly fluid. Either side could shift position in the coming days, particularly if energy markets react sharply or if regional partners intensify calls for a ceasefire.

What remains clear is that the standoff has entered a phase in which both military readiness and diplomatic signaling are being deployed simultaneously. Araghchi's statement encapsulates that duality, projecting willingness to fight while keeping the possibility of talks alive.

Whether the "doomsday war" warning is a genuine reflection of Iranian planning or a negotiating tactic designed to extract better terms is likely to remain a matter of interpretation. Either way, the collapse of Iran's seven-day proposal means the immediate path back to calm remains blocked.

With the Strait of Hormuz still at the center of the dispute and Washington and Tehran at an impasse, the next move may determine whether the region edges back toward negotiations or slides further toward a wider confrontation.