Araghchi: The Ceasefire Was a Sign of Israel’s Defeat

According to Saednews, after a round of intensive diplomacy that began in the midst of the war, starting in Geneva, then continuing in Istanbul, Moscow, and finally Ashgabat, the director of the office of Al-Araby Al-Jadeed in Tehran, on his return journey from Moscow to Ashgabat and then Tehran, spoke with Abbas Araghchi, Deputy Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

This conversation covered the latest developments, including the ceasefire with the Zionist regime, the attack on the Al-Udeid base in Qatar, and the future of negotiations with the United States. Araghchi responded calmly and optimistically in this interview.

After 12 days of war, Iran and Israel reached a ceasefire. What are the most important provisions of this agreement? Has an agreement also been reached regarding the resumption of talks with the U.S.?

The primary principle under current conditions is to determine whether the aggressor party has the ability to implement what it has proposed and maintain it, or whether internal rivalries among different factions within the Zionist regime’s power structure will, as in the past, turn the ceasefire into a tool to manage their internal crises.

Was it not possible to reach such an agreement before the attack on the nuclear facilities?

The Islamic Republic of Iran was not the initiator of the war. Our country has always been exposed to aggression and has based itself on the principle of defense. Even after that, if aggression is committed against Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, the response will be in the same manner and with the same intensity. As I emphasized at the Istanbul press conference, the entry of the U.S. into the war was a sign of the Zionist regime’s failure and inability to continue the conflicts. Their naive assumption was that Iran would surrender once the U.S. intervened. But when they saw our response using the third-generation Khorramshahr missiles was much stronger and more decisive than they had imagined, they retreated from continuing the war and proposed a ceasefire through intermediaries.

Iran’s acceptance of the ceasefire was aimed at preserving moral and value superiority. This decision is based on establishing a new approach in Iran’s foreign policy, relying on regional and Islamic values. The support of Muslim governments and peoples of the region for this decisive approach can isolate the Zionist regime, which has no commitment to ethics or values, even more than before.

Iran responded to the U.S. attacks by targeting the Al-Udeid base in Qatar. Some analysts consider this a strategic mistake toward Doha, especially considering Qatar’s positive and effective roles.

Iran’s strategic action in targeting U.S. military and intelligence bases in the region was carried out within the framework of legitimate self-defense. This attack was against the U.S. and in no way signifies a violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iran’s neighboring countries. The Islamic Republic of Iran, while fully respecting the sovereign rights and national integrity of all countries in the region, considers itself obligated to respond strongly to defend its existence.

This means the U.S. cannot use the territory of other countries as a safe haven to achieve its goals and destabilize the region. Necessary warnings have been given clearly and directly in this regard. For example, at the last confidential meeting of the foreign ministers of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation member states held last Sunday, I explicitly raised this issue and it has also been recorded in the organization’s official documents.

Iran’s relations with each neighboring country, including the brotherly and friendly country Qatar, are based on deep and unbreakable strategic, historical, and social ties. We respect the national sovereignty of all these countries and with full determination and will, we will continue our stable and comprehensive relations with them.

In any case, these bases are American bases that regional countries have allowed the U.S. to use for security or other reasons. We have clearly informed these countries that we do not intend to attack their territory. Our respect for Qatar’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity is firm and indisputable, and Iran’s action should not be interpreted as an attack on Qatar.

After the U.S. attacks on the nuclear facilities, was any message sent from Washington to Iran? What was its content?

Yes, the Americans continuously sent us messages through various channels before and after the aggression, which is natural since certain points must be exchanged between the parties. We received their messages through intermediaries and indirect channels and responded accordingly; this approach is common in diplomacy. The goal of exchanging these messages was to prevent misunderstandings, contain tensions, and clarify positions. We clearly told all intermediaries that Iran will not return to the negotiating table with the U.S. nor resume diplomatic paths until the aggression stops. We have explained this position to the Europeans as well, and it seems they now have a clear understanding of our stance. We must wait and see what happens in the future.

If the ceasefire does not hold and Israel or the U.S. aggress again, how much resistance can Iran sustain?

The answer to this question is clear. We have shown very strong resistance; contrary to the aggressor regime’s assumption that its initial strikes in the early days would bring Iran to its knees, this did not happen. Instead, Iran’s firepower increased day by day and its resolve became firmer. Our missile accuracy improved, and recent developments proved that Iran remains strong. The perseverance of the Iranian people was unparalleled and the level of solidarity between the people and government is very hopeful. The Iranian people saw their government’s sincerity; a government that entered negotiations in good faith but was violated by the other side. The government stood firm at the negotiation table and did not compromise the nation’s rights, and on the battlefield, it also stood powerfully. Today we witness true national cohesion and widespread popular resistance; despite the difficulties of war, sufferings, martyrs, wounded, and fears, I am confident that the Iranian regime and government will stand to the end in defending the integrity, sovereignty, independence, interests, and achievements of the nation.

Can the aggression of Israel and the U.S. weaken Iran’s will to continue its nuclear program, especially uranium enrichment?

On the contrary, its effect will be positive and will strengthen our resolve. We have made great efforts to achieve this technology. Our scientists have sacrificed their lives for it. Our nation has endured sanctions for it, and even a war has been imposed on us over this issue. Therefore, no one in Iran is willing to give up this technology. Iran’s nuclear program has been transparent and under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Is it possible that after these attacks, Iran’s nuclear program will enter a phase of ambiguity and Iran will reconsider its relations with the IAEA?

It is too early to give a definitive answer to this question. But undoubtedly, the attack on our nuclear facilities will have deep and wide-ranging effects on Iran’s future path, and this is inevitable. We have tried for years to show the world that we adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and seek to operate within its framework, but unfortunately, this treaty has not been able to protect us or our nuclear program. This is an issue that must be taken seriously.

Moreover, the IAEA reports have also played a significant role in leading to the current situation, and we are not satisfied with their tone and content. We believe there are political motives behind these reports, which is also an important issue. The matter of protecting our nuclear facilities in the future must also be considered. Why, despite twenty years of transparency and confidence-building, has no result been achieved? This is a question that will receive attention. In my opinion, our view on the nuclear program and the non-proliferation regime will undergo changes, but at present, I cannot judge their precise direction.

In the midst of war and aggression, you launched a broad diplomatic initiative. What was the goal of this effort?

Our main goal initially was to help secure the country; by exposing the aggressor’s face to world public opinion and attracting global condemnation against it. We also contacted other countries to encourage them to take firm stances against the aggression and actions of the U.S. and the Zionist regime. These efforts aimed to create a form of political deterrence against these attacks and prevent their recurrence in the future. Diplomacy can play an effective role in this regard, and I believe we have succeeded. All countries in the region stood with us and condemned the aggression. Muslim countries also supported us, as did many other countries.

Naturally, Westerners, Europeans, and Americans shamelessly not only did not support us, but tried to justify the Zionist regime’s aggression and covered it with various excuses. Nevertheless, we strive to make the rights of the Iranian nation heard by the world and to inform other countries about our positions so that they can make the right decisions. This is the duty of the diplomatic apparatus, both in peace and in wartime. In such circumstances, it is natural to pursue these efforts with greater determination and will.

Did your talks with Europeans in Geneva lead to specific results or agreements?

These meetings were useful in better presenting our positions to Europeans, even though they support the Zionist regime. From the aspect of their retreat from some accusations they had made against us, these negotiations were also important. Now the view in Europe has solidified that there is no military solution to the Iran issue. This belief has been strengthened especially after recent developments, clarifying that these attacks are ultimately not the solution. Although these negotiations could not solve the entire problem, they helped mutual understanding between the parties. For this reason, both sides have expressed their readiness to continue talks.

As I have said before and emphasize again now, I do not call this process a negotiation but a dialogue between Iran and Europe. Negotiation usually aims to reach an agreement, but we are not seeking an agreement with Europe, and they fundamentally do not have the capacity for such a thing. The agreement we seek must include lifting sanctions, which is beyond Europe’s authority. However, dialogue, especially under normal conditions, is always positive. In my view, the continuation of dialogue between Iran and Europe can help reduce misunderstandings.

Did Europeans present specific proposals in the Geneva talks?

General proposals were made regarding stopping hostilities and the future of Iran’s nuclear file. But it must be said that Europe is not the main actor or decision-maker in these issues and its role is limited to dialogue.

Are you satisfied with the results of your trip to Russia?

Yes, very much so. I had a good meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Russia has taken firm and clear positions condemning the aggression of the U.S. and the Zionist regime. Russia plays an influential role in Iran’s nuclear file, and we cooperate with this country in various areas, from the Bushehr power plant to future nuclear projects. Russia was also a member of the P5+1 (the 2015 nuclear agreement) and we have always consulted and exchanged views with them and benefited from their proposals. Given the intensification of events, coordination and close consultation between us and continuation of the common path was necessary.

How do you assess the official and popular stances of regional countries toward this aggression?

At both the official and popular levels, very good stances were taken. All countries condemned the aggression; some with a harsh tone, some more moderate, but across the region and the Islamic world, we witnessed a united stance. The statement issued by the foreign ministers of Islamic countries in Istanbul was very strong, and a special clause condemning the U.S. aggression was even added, since it coincided with the second day of the simultaneous meeting.

In my opinion, the governments’ stances were positive, and at the popular and public opinion level, whether in Arab and Islamic countries or elsewhere, we saw unprecedented solidarity with the Iranian nation. This was clearly visible in writings, analyses, interviews, and various statements. I think that the closeness of Arab and Islamic public opinion with the Iranian nation is now greater than ever before, and this is one of the blessings of these events.

I am very pleased that the Zionist regime’s aggression at least achieved this important outcome: that Arab and Islamic public opinion was united and voiced in an unprecedented way, resulting in regional solidarity. For years, some parties tried to depict Iran as a threatening and dangerous figure, but today that fear has disappeared and the real enemy is recognized by all. Israel tried for years to reverse this equation and portray Iran as a threat to the region, but this plan completely failed.

I wish to thank the Arab media, especially analysts and writers in the Arab world, who played an important role in explaining and illuminating these positions. We appreciate these efforts and will continue to strive to strengthen this unity and solidarity that has formed today.