TEHRAN — President Masoud Pezeshkian has expressed gratitude to Pope Leo XIV for the pontiff’s strong moral stance condemning the US-Israeli aggression against Iran.

“I extend my warmest and most sincere greetings to Your Holiness and express my gratitude for your moral, rational, and fair positions regarding the attack,” Pezeshkian said in a message addressed to the head of the Catholic Church.

The US and Israel launched war on Iran on February 28. The Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and several senior Iranian military commanders were martyred on the first day of the war in Tehran. An April 8 ceasefire paused the fighting. Nonetheless, diplomatic efforts aimed at bringing a permanent end to the war have so far failed due to what Iran calls the US “excessive” demands. The US and Israeli strikes not only targeted military sites but also hospitals, schools, civilian infrastructure, and residential areas. On the first day of the strikes, a US Tomahawk missile hit a Shajareh Tayyebeh elementary school in the southern city of Minab. Nearly 170 people, most of them school children, were killed in the attack. Officials say nearly 3,500 people were killed in Iran during 39 days of war. Iran’s strong retaliatory strikes against Israel and US-based targets in the Persian Gulf region left no alternative for the administration of President Donald Trump but to reach the ceasefire deal with Tehran.

Further in his letter, Pezeshkian said the US-Israeli war was an assault against the “rule of law”.
“The destructive approach of the United States and the Israeli regime and their illegitimate attacks are not directed solely against Iran, but rather against the rule of law at the global level, international law, human values, and the teachings of divine religions. It is evident that the costs of such a dangerous approach will be borne by the entire international community,” he said.

President Pezeshkian denounced as “shameless” Trump’s threat to “destroy Iran’s historical civilization and send it back to the Stone Age.”
“The President of the United States had earlier made a dangerous and shameless statement saying that he intends to destroy Iran’s historical civilization and return it to the Stone Age. As Your Holiness has noted, such remarks stem from the illusion of absolute power and are rooted in arrogance, bullying, excessive ambition, and attempts to resolve disputes through unrestrained violence, conduct that the human conscience cannot comprehend or tolerate,” he said.

Pezeshkian stressed that Iran “remains committed to diplomacy and peaceful solutions” to the conflict, urging the international community to stand against the US “unlawful” demands.

“Iran’s steadfastness in the face of the unlawful demands of the US administration is, in fact, a defense of international law and of the lofty values of humanity. Therefore, the international community is expected to adopt a realistic and fair approach and to confront the unlawful demands and the adventurous and dangerous policies of the United States.”

Pope Leo XIV’s condemnation of the war

Pope Leo XIV has repeatedly and publicly condemned the US-Israeli offensive in Iran, calling for an immediate end to hostilities and urging world leaders to prioritize dialogue over military escalation. He warned that the use of overwhelming force and attacks affecting civilian populations are incompatible with international humanitarian law and moral teaching.

In several public remarks, the pope criticized rhetoric that frames war in religious or ideological terms, insisting that faith must never be used to justify violence. He stressed that “true strength is found in protecting life” and repeatedly called for restraint, a ceasefire, and the protection of civilians.

Trump’s affront to the Pope

Trump responded sharply to the pope’s statements. In public remarks and social media posts, Trump described Pope Leo XIV as “weak,” “naïve on foreign policy,” and “terrible for foreign policy.”

He accused the pontiff of misunderstanding geopolitical realities and argued that criticism of US military actions undermines Western security interests. Trump also suggested that the pope should “stick to religion” rather than comment on international affairs. When questioned by journalists about his remarks, Trump declined to apologize, stating that he had the right to disagree and stood by his position.

Reactions to Trump’s statements

Trump’s comments triggered widespread criticism across religious, political, and civil society circles.

Senior Catholic bishops and Church leaders in Europe and the United States strongly defended the pope, emphasizing that speaking out against war and the killing of civilians is central to the Church’s moral responsibility. They described Trump’s language as disrespectful toward the head of the Catholic Church and warned that such rhetoric risks straining relations between the Vatican and Washington.

Analysts also said public attacks by a US president on the pope are highly unusual in modern history and reflect a growing divide between political power and moral authority in global affairs. They pointed out that the controversy highlights broader tensions over the legitimacy of military action and the role of international law, particularly amid rising concern about civilian casualties and the escalation of regional conflicts.
For now, Pezeshkian’s remarks reflect a broader demand for accountability in international relations and a rejection of unilateral military force. Iran’s position, as presented in his message, frames the conflict as part of a wider struggle to uphold international law against coercive and destabilizing actions by powerful states.

The pope’s condemnation of war aligns, in this framing, with growing global concern over the humanitarian consequences of military escalation and the erosion of legal norms. The strong reaction to Trump’s comments further underscores the sensitivity surrounding attacks on moral and religious voices calling for restraint.

More broadly, the episode illustrates how contemporary conflicts are fought not only on the battlefield but also in the realm of narrative, legitimacy, and global public opinion. Competing interpretations of sovereignty, international law, and moral responsibility increasingly shape diplomatic alignments and influence how crises are perceived worldwide.